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 12/04/2025, the following represents the changes from the previous claims: Claims 1, 4, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19 were amended, Claims 2-3 were canceled. Claims 1, 4-21 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 21, the limitation “opening” in line 2 should read –opening.--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-9, 13, and 14-21 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 6, the limitation “like a truncated cylinder” is indefinite as “-like” is synonymous with "or the like". The phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For claim 14, the limitation “the at least one feed port” in line 5 lacks antecedent basis. Also, the limitation “like a truncated cylinder” is indefinite as “-like” is synonymous with "or the like". The phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For claim 16, the limitation “a plug” in line 2 is unclear because is it referring to a different plug than what was stated in claim 14, line 5? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same plug and it is recommended that “the” be inserted before “plug” in claim 16.
For claim 21, the limitation “the upper section” in line 1, and “the at least one opening” in line 2 lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 7-9, 13, 15, 17-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a/1)(a/2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Baynard (US 7409922 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Baynard discloses a feeder (10) comprising: a body (12) with an interior cavity (interior of 12 in fig. 1A) and a tapered bottom (fig. 1 depicts 12 to have a tapered bottom) wherein the tapered bottom has at least one feed port (39) comprising an opening (opening of 39) in the tapered bottom (fig. 1); a lid (14) with an upper surface (upper surface of 14) that extends away from the body of the feeder at an angle of at least 30 degrees (fig. 1 depicts the upper surface of the lid to be at least 30 degrees); and wherein the lid is positioned to cover an opening (opening of 12) into the interior cavity (fig. 1); and a funnel (the tapered walls of 12 form a funnel in as shown in examiner’s illustration of fig. 3) is positioned in the interior cavity above a floor (26 and see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3) of the body (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
949
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Baynard appears to disclose the lid with the upper surface that extends away from the body of the feeder at an angle of at least 30 degrees. However, if not, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the upper surface of the lid of Baynard to extend away from the body of the feeder at an angle of at least 30 degrees, since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (in order to prevent rain and other elements from piling up on top of the lid as it is well known in the art). In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Baynard discloses the feeder of Claim 1 further comprising a portion of the floor (26) of the body of the feeder that is cone-shaped (fig. 3) wherein an apex (top of 26 fig. 3 and Col. 3, line 52) of the cone-shaped portion of the floor extends upward into the interior cavity (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Baynard discloses a feed storage and distribution device (10) comprising: a body (12) with an upper section (upper section of 12), a lower section (lower section of 12) and an interior cavity (interior of 12); at least one opening (opening of 39) featured by the lower section of the body (fig. 1); wherein said opening leads into the interior cavity of the body (figs. 1 and 3); and a plug (40) shaped like a truncated cylinder (figs. 1 and 3 depict plug 40 to be a truncated cylinder), that is open at both ends (fig. 3) and inserted into the at least one feed port (figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 15, Baynard teaches the feed storage and distribution device of Claim 14 further comprising a lid (14) extending away from the body of the feeder at an angle of at least 30 degrees (fig. 1 depicts the upper surface of the lid to be at least 30 degrees).
Baynard appears to disclose the lid with the upper surface that extends away from the body of the feeder at an angle of at least 30 degrees. However, if not, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the upper surface of the lid of Baynard to extend away from the body of the feeder at an angle of at least 30 degrees, since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (in order to prevent rain and other elements from piling up on top of the lid as it is well known in the art). In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, Baynard teaches the feed storage and distribution device of Claim 14 further comprising a plug (40) inserted into the at least one opening (figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 17, Baynard teaches the feed storage and distribution device of Claim 14, further comprising a funnel (the tapered walls of 12 form a funnel in as shown in examiner’s illustration of fig. 3) positioned inside the body of the feed storage and distribution device (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3) above a floor of the body (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
949
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Baynard teaches the feed storage and distribution device of Claim 14, further comprising a portion of a floor (26 and see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3) of the body of the feeder that is cone-shaped (fig. 3) wherein an apex (top of 26 fig. 3 and Col. 3, line 52) of the cone- shaped portion of the floor extends upward into the interior cavity (fig. 3).
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baynard as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Hunter (US 7261056 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Baynard teaches the feeder of Claim 4 wherein the at least one feed port is an opening in the body of the feeder that faces outward and away from the body (fig. 1 and 3).
However, Baynard is silent about the at least one feed port is a horizontally oriented opening.
Hunter teaches the at least one feed port (80) is a horizontally oriented opening (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the feed port of Baynard to be a horizontally oriented opening as taught by Hunter (in order to enhance comfort and make it easier for the animal receive the feed as it is well known in the art), since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6, Baynard as modified by Hunter teaches the feeder of Claim 5, and Baynard further teaches further comprising a plug (40) shaped like a truncated cylinder (figs. 1 and 3 depict plug 40 to be a truncated cylinder), that is open at both ends (fig. 3) and inserted into the at least one feed port (figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 7, Baynard as modified by Hunter teaches the feeder of Claim 6, and Baynard further teaches further comprising an upper portion (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3 of upper portion of plug side wall towards the hood) of a plug side wall (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3) that extends further away from a base (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3) of the plug than a lower portion (portion under the upper portion in examiner’s illustration of fig. 3) of the plug side wall (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3 and Col. 4, lines 17-19 as the lower portion has a lip 42 that is bent upwards and so will be shorter than the upper portion, and so the upper portion of the plug side wall will extend further away from the base of the plug than the lower portion) to form a hood (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3 and Col. 4, lines 17-19 as the lower portion’s lip 42 is bent upwards while the upper portion of the plug side wall extends further outward, and so forms a hood) extending away from the base of the plug (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3 as the hood extends away from the base of the plug).
PNG
media_image2.png
304
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Baynard as modified by Hunter teaches the feeder of Claim 6, and Banyard further teaches wherein the plug features a vertically oriented wall (42 and Col. 4, lines 17-19 as the lip 42 extends upwardly, and so is vertically oriented) that covers a portion of an opening in the plug (Col. 4, lines 17-19 and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Baynard as modified by Hunter teaches the feeder of Claim 7 and Banyard further teaches wherein the plug features a vertically oriented wall (42 and Col. 4, lines 17-19 as the lip 42 extends upwardly, and so is vertically oriented) that covers a portion of an opening in the plug (Col. 4, lines 17-19 and fig. 1).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baynard as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Bonnema (US 8006946 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Baynard discloses the feeder of Claim 4 further comprising a pocket (30) formed on the underside of the feeder (fig. 3) wherein the pocket is shaped and sized to engage with a post (34) inserted into the pocket (fig. 3).
However, Baynard is silent about the pocket formed on the underside of the feeder by the cone-shaped floor.
Bonnema teaches the pocket (51) formed on the underside of the feeder by the cone-shaped floor (26 and fig. 10).
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 pocket of Baynard to be formed on the underside of the feeder by the cone-shaped floor as taught by Bonnema in order to further add stability to the feed as it is well known in the art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baynard as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baker (US 20160014998 A1) and Evans (US 20150272079 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Baynard teaches the feeder of Claim 1, but is silent about further comprising: a plurality of adjustable legs; and a plurality of molded female sleeves integrated into the body of the feeder; wherein the plurality of adjustable legs insert into the plurality of molded sleeves integrated into the body of the feeder.
Baker teaches a plurality of adjustable legs (104, 106, 108).
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 plurality of adjustable legs as taught by Baker into the feeder of Baynard in order to adjust the height of the feeder and allow for selective feeding ([0016] of Baker).
Evans teaches a plurality of molded female sleeves (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3 as the perimeter of the openings receiving the legs are the sleeves) integrated into the body of the feeder (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
367
350
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
315
365
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of molded female sleeves integrated into the body of the feeder as taught by Evans into the feeder of Baynard as modified by Baker in order to further secure the legs to the feeder.
In the event that the applicant disagrees with examiner’s interpretation of the plurality of molded female sleeves integrated into the body, 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 plurality of molded female sleeves of Baynard as modified by Baker and Evans to be integrated into the body of the feeder in order to make manufacturing the device easier, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detriot Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
The combination of Baynard as modified by Baker and Evans teaches wherein the plurality of adjustable legs (104, 106, 108 of Baynard) insert into the plurality of molded sleeves (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3 of Evans) integrated into the body of the feeder (fig. 3 of Evans) in order to adjust the height of the feeder to the desired animal ([0016] of Baker).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baynard as modified by Baker and Evans as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Xevers (US 0756765 A).
Regarding claim 12, Baynard as modified by Baker and Evans teaches the feeder of Claim 11, but is silent about further comprising molded female receptacles integrated into the funnel and that are positioned to cover the plurality of molded sleeves when the funnel is inserted into the interior cavity.
Xevers teaches comprising molded female receptacles (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1) attached onto the funnel (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1 as the molded female receptacles are attached into the outer surface of the funnel).
PNG
media_image5.png
251
502
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include molded female receptacles as taught by Xevers into the feeder of Baynard as modified by Baker and Evans to allow the user to easily replace the legs when damaged and provide more customization to the legs (page 1, lines 50-53 of Xevers).
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 molded female receptacles of Baynard as modified by Baker, Evans and Xevers to be integrated into the funnel to make the device easier to manufacture, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detriot Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
The combination of Baynard as modified by Baker, Evans and Xevers teaches the molded female receptacles (Xevers) positioned to cover the plurality of molded sleeves when the funnel is inserted into the interior cavity (the molded female receptacles of Xevers can be positioned to cover the plurality of molded sleeves of Evans as the funnel of Xevers is capable of being inserted into Baynard, and Baynard will be modified with Evans to have the sleeves, therefore it can accommodate the molded female receptacles of Xevers).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baynard as modified by Hunter as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Thompson (US 4402343 A).
Regarding claim 13, Baynard as modified by Hunter teaches the feeder of Claim 6, but is silent about wherein the plug also features a drinking valve.
Thompson teaches wherein the plug (10) also features a drinking valve (24).
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 drinking valve as taught by Thompson into the plug of Baynard as modified by Hunter in order release water when operated by the animal (Col. 3, lines 32-37 of Thompson).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baynard as applied to claims 14 and 16 above, and further in view of BIGGIN (US 20170245474 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Baynard teaches the feed storage and distribution device of Claim 16, further comprising: an upper portion (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3 of upper portion of plug side wall towards the hood) of a plug side wall (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3) that extends further away than a lower portion (portion under the upper portion in examiner’s illustration of fig. 3) of the plug side wall (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3) and forms a hood (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3 and Col. 4, lines 17-19 as the lower portion’s lip 42 is bent upwards while the upper portion of the plug side wall extends further outward, and so forms a hood) extending away from the plug (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3 as the hood extends away from the plug); and a vertically oriented wall (42 and Col. 4, lines 17-19 as the lip 42 extends upwardly, and so is vertically oriented) that covers a portion of an opening in the plug (42, fig. 1 and Col. 4, lines 17-19 as the lip 42 extends upwardly, and so is vertically oriented).
PNG
media_image2.png
304
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Baynard does not explicitly teach the upper portion of the side wall that extends further away from the feed storage and distribution device than the lower portion of the side wall.
BIGGIN teaches the upper portion (hood portion of 160) of the side wall (side wall of 160) that extends further away from the feed storage and distribution device (100 and 200) than the lower portion (lower portion of 160 that is under the hood) of the side wall (figs. 1 and 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the upper portion of the plug side wall of Baynard to extend further away from the feed storage and distribution device than the lower portion of the side wall as taught by BIGGIN in order to prevent water from entering the feed storage ([0089] of BIGGIN), since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baynard as applied to claims 14 and 16 above, and further in view of Thompson (US 4402343 A).
Regarding claim 20, Baynard teaches the feed storage and distribution device of Claim 16, but is silent about further comprising a drinking valve integrated into the plug.
Thompson teaches comprising a drinking valve (24) integrated into the plug (10 and fig. 2).
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 drinking valve as taught by Thompson integrated into the plug of Baynard in order release water when operated by the animal (Col. 3, lines 32-37 of Thompson).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baynard as modified by Bonnema as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Teinert (US 20170035023 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Baynard as modified by Bonnema The feed storage and distribution device of Claim 10, and Baynard further teaches the upper section (upper section of 12) of the body.
However, Baynard as modified by Bonnema is silent about a drip edge located above the at least one opening.
Teinert teaches a drip edge (32) located above the at least one opening (fig. 3).
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 drip edge as taught by Teinert into the feeder of Baynard as modified by Bonnema in order to prevent the feed from getting wet so as to avoid spoilage and also provide extra structural support, as it is well known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 19 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.
Applicant argues “The Examiner has rejected Claim 1 citing Baynard as teaching a feeder comprising a body with an interior cavity and a tapered bottom ...and...a funnel positioned in the interior cavity above a floor of the body. However, Baynard does not disclose a funnel positioned in the interior cavity above the floor of the body at all, but rather teaches a sidewall 12 that is slightly cone -shaped (See column 3, line 33 and figures 1-4). On the other hand, the Applicant has described a body that is a separate structure from the funnel that is positioned inside the cavity of the body of the feeder. (see for example, page 9 of the specification at lines 7-17 indicating the funnel is located above the distribution cone 22).”.
The examiner respectively disagrees as Baynard teaches a funnel as the tapered walls of 12 do form a funnel (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “body that is a separate structure from the funnel”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues “Regarding claim 6, the Examiner cites Baynard as teaching a plug shaped like a truncated cylinder and points to element number 40 in Figures 1 and 3. However, element number 40 is a spout whose shape is only described as tubular (see Column 4, lines 4-6). None of the other references cited by the Examiner contain this missing teaching.”.
The examiner respectively disagrees as Baynard teaches the plug 40 to be a truncated cylinder (figs. 1 and 3 depict plug 40 to be a truncated cylinder) as the lower portion of 40 is bent as seen in examiner’s illustration of fig. 3. Also, the lip 42 extends upwardly and so will have the plug 40 be a truncated cylinder (Col. 4, lines 17-19 of Baynard).
Also, the limitation “like a truncated cylinder” is indefinite as “-like” is synonymous with "or the like". The phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Applicant further argues “Regarding Claim 7, the Examiner cites Baynard as teaching a portion of the plug wall that extends further away from a base of the plug than another portion of the plug wall. However, what Baynard teaches is the opposite of a hood as recited by Applicant. The structure identified by the Examiner, is the spout 40 that is described in column 4 at lines 17-19. As can be seen from Figure 3, the bottom of the spout protrudes further away from the body of the device than does the top of the spout. The spout is further described as having a lower portion bent upward at an angle of about 40 degrees and forming a lip 42 from the bottom surface of the spout to prevent feed from spilling out of the device. This spout is literally the opposite of a hood which is defined as a structure that covers the top of something (an engine, a person's head, etc.)”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The upper portion of the plug 40 will form a hood as the lower portion of the plug side wall has a lip 42 that bent upwards (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3 and Col. 4, lines 17-19). This will lead to the upper portion of the plug to form a hood as the upper portion will protrude forward while the lower portion will be bent upwards, thus the upper portion forming a hood.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the bottom of the spout protrudes further away from the body of the device than does the top of the spout”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues “Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Claim 7 has been amended to clarify that the plug has a side wall 14c (see the specification at page 7, lines 25-30) as well as a vertically oriented wall 16 (Specification page 8, lines 1-2). In rejecting Claims 8 and 9, the Examiner cites Baynard as teaching a plug with a vertically oriented wall that covers a portion of the opening. However, Baynard teaches a tubular shaped spout that protrudes at an upward angle from the collar 36 that defines the opening that the spout 40 extends through. The structure that the Examiner cites is analogous to the side wall 12c of the Applicant's feeder, not a separate vertically oriented wall that covers a portion of the opening in the plug that communicates with the feed port. This side wall cited by the Examiner cannot function as both the hood that is formed from an upper portion of the side wall of the plug AND a separate vertically oriented wall 16 that covers a portion of the opening of the plug. Applicants claims recite both of these structures. Further, the Applicant respectfully notes that the portion of the side wall of the spout 40 pointed to by the examiner does not extend downward to cover a portion of the opening, but rather defines the opening itself.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a separate vertically oriented wall” and “extend downward to cover a portion of the opening”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues “With respect to the Examiner's rejection of Claim 10, the Examiner cites Bonnema as teaching a pocket formed on the underside of the feeder by the cone-shaped floor. However, a careful reading of Bonnema reveals no such teaching. The post 88 is held in place using a detent arrangement including two small channels 100 and 102 that engage with a ridge 104 on the post (see Column 7, lines 8-10). There is no specific reference to the shape of the bottom of that base assembly nor is the bottom of the base assembly shown in the figures.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees as fig. 10 of Bonnema depicts the pocket (51) formed on the underside of the feeder by the cone-shaped floor (26 and fig. 10) as 51 is a threaded member (Col. 8, lines 24-25) to receive post 130 (Col. 7, lines 34-36, and Col. 8, lines 49-51) and so teaches a pocket. Also, the examiner is relying on the embodiment of fig. 10, not the embodiment of fig. 24 of Column 7, lines 8-10.
Applicant further argues “Evans does not show a molded female receptacle at all - the Examiner is pointing to part of the leg(s), 114, 116 and 118. This leg and its structure are described in paragraph [0028]. There is no teaching that this leg fits into anything, much less a molded sleeve, but rather it appears to attached to the side of the body of the device using conventional fasteners (see Figure 3). The Examiner indicates at the bottom of page 8 of the office action that it would have been obvious to modify the plurality of molded sleeves taught by Baynard to be integrated into the body of the feeder to make manufacturing easier. However, there is still no discussion of the specific structures in Baynard to be combined with the other references to reach the Examiner's conclusion.
The examiner respectfully disagrees as the above rejection is not relying on the legs to teach the molded female sleeves. As stated above, the examiner is interpreting the openings in examiner’s illustration of fig. 3 as the molded sleeves as they are shown to receive the legs. Examiner’s illustration of fig. 3 clearly depicts an opening receiving the legs, and the sleeve is the perimeter of the opening.
Applicant further argues “When rejecting Claim 12, the Examiner cites Xevers as teaching molded female receptacles attached onto the funnel. However, the Examiner is pointing to a bracket on the outside of the body of the feeder rather than a molded sleeve in the funnel which is a separate structure from the side of the body. Neither Baynard nor Xevers disclose a funnel positioned in the interior cavity above the floor of the body, but rather both teach a sidewall that is slightly cone-shaped (See column 3, line 33 and figures 1-4 of Baynard and column 2, lines 50-56 and Figure 1 of Xevers). As a result it cannot be said that combining Baynard, Baker, Evans and Xevers produces a teaching that includes "...molded female receptacles integrated into the funnel and that are positioned to cover the plurality of molded sleeves when the funnel is inserted into the interior cavity" as recited in Claim 12.
In response to the Examiner's argument son Page 14 of the outstanding office action, the Examiner is taking two analogous structures , i.e. the bodies of the feeders, in two references and combining them to form two separate structures in one device. However, "obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim."CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int'l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Since the cited references both teach a feeder with a body and do not indicate there is any incentive to combine the feeders of two bodies to create a body with a funnel shaped body inside of it, then the cited references do not teach or suggest all of the limitations of the claims and the combination is inappropriate.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees as the receptacles of Xevers are clearly molded female receptacles so as to receive the legs. If the receptacles were not molded, than the legs would not be able to be inserted. Also, fig. 1 Xevers clearly depicts the receptacles to be molded as they are curved. Also, the receptacles are attached onto the funnel (1) as a funnel has a tapered construction, which is shown in fig. 1.
Also, in response to applicant's argument that “the cited references both teach a feeder with a body and do not indicate there is any incentive to combine the feeders of two bodies to create a body with a funnel shaped body inside of it,”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant further argues “With respect the Examiner's rejection of Claim 13, the Thompson reference simply discloses a valve by itself and does not teach integrating a drinking valve into any sort of feeder. Element 24 is referred to as a valve closure member not a drinking valve inserted into a plug in a feeder.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thompson does teach a drinking valve as valve 24 as 24 consists of stem 25 which is smaller than the bore 15 to allow rocking of the valve so that water can flow (Col. 3, lines 32-37 of Thompson).
Applicant further argues “Regarding Claim 14, the Examiner maintains their position that Teinart discloses a drip edge located above the feed openings. However, the Examiner identifies the shoulder 32 in Teinert as the drip edge; however, Teinert's shoulder is a discrete protrusion that engages with the cradle (see paragraph [0018]. There is no teaching that this shoulder is a drip edge, that by definition would encircle the entire outside surface of the body as show in in Figures 1, 5, 6, 7A, 7B and 8 as originally filed. The shoulder of Teinert is structurally and functionally different from the drip edge recited in the present application.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees as the drip edge (32) of Teinert is clearly shown to encircle the entire outside surface of the body as depicted in fig. 3. Also, the shoulder 32 functions as a drip edge as it protrudes outward. The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039.
All other claims with arguments are similarly unpersuasive as they relate to claims 1-14 and the art used for those claims were used for other features that are not claimed in claims 1-14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR ALMATRAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAHAR ALMATRAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643