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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second housing, second sensor, second antenna, or other component, as well as the second housing being coupled to the first housing must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 30, 36 and 51 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.
The term “rubber-like material” in claim 30 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rubber-like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore rubber-like material is rendered indefinite, as it is unclear the exact breadth of the claim, and what materials would or would not fall within the scope of “rubber-like”
Claim 36 states “the second housing comprising at least one of … other component that is different from the at least one sensor, antenna, or other component in the first housing.” An “other component” is rendered indefinite, as it fails to claim what the component actually is. It is unclear what the boundary of the claim is as there are no limitation on what the other component could be besides being a component not on the first housing.
Claim 51 is rejected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 26, 30-33, 36-39, 41, 44-45, 48, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez (US 2017/0105389) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 11/29/23) in view of Chamberlain (GB 2492110) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 12/29/23) and Mott et al. (US 2022/0151207).
Regarding Claim 26, Sanchez discloses a pet amusement device (pet toy; Paragraph [0025]), comprising:
at least one housing (toy body; Paragraph [0025]) comprising, at least in part:
a memory (data storage device; Paragraph [0034]);
a transceiver (input detection device Paragraph [0025]; transceiver Paragraph [0027]);
at least one sensor (input detection device; Paragraph [0025]; pressure sensor Paragraph [0029]), the at least one sensor configured to detect one or more parameters corresponding to at least one pet interaction with the device (Paragraph [0029]);
at least one haptic motor configured to generate at least some vibration through the at least one housing (vibration motor Paragraph [0028]; “The vibration motor is able to vibrate the electronic toy in response to the interactive input. The vibration motor is actuated as the interactive output during step (G), allowing the electronic toy to vibrate.” Paragraph [0031]); and
a processor (control unit Paragraph [0025]), the processor configured at least to:
receive the one or more parameters (“A control unit is also provided and is communicably coupled to the input detection device and to the interactive output device, enabling communications between the control unit, the input detection device, and the interactive output device (Step B).” Paragraph [0025]);
transmit one or more signals corresponding to data to one or more remote servers (notification to computing device; Paragraph [0026; Figure 4).
Sanchez fails to disclose a power source; the processor configured at least to: generate data corresponding to the one or more parameters; transmit one or more signals corresponding to the data to one or more remote servers; control the at least some vibration based on a command from the one or more remote servers.
However, Chamberlain teaches a similar pet amusement device comprising a power source (battery 144).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the amusement device of Sanchez, with the power source of Chamberlain with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for greater freedom of movement of the device without corded attachments.
Additionally, Mott teaches a pet training device comprising at least one sensor configured to detect one or more parameters corresponding to at least one pet interaction with the device (“the wearable device can sense, detect, or collect data related to the pet from one or more sensors.” Paragraph [0077]); the processor configured at least to generate data corresponding to the one or more parameters (health indicators step 502 and 503 Figure 5; Paragraphs [0080-0081]; “The steps of the method shown in FIG. 5 can be performed by a server, the wearable device, and/or the mobile device.” Paragraph [0077]); transmit one or more signals corresponding to the data to one or more remote servers (“In certain non-limiting embodiments, the collected and aggregated data can be displayed to the user through, for example, a mobile application on a user device” Paragraph [0083]); control the at least some vibration based on a command from the one or more remote servers (“the server can instruct the wearable device to turn on an illumination device based on the wellness assessment of the pet, as shown in step 504… ” Paragraph [0084]; Figures 2 and 5; “In certain non-limiting embodiments, instead of an illumination device the wearable device can include any other indicator, such as a sound device, which can include a speaker, and/or a vibration device.” Paragraph [0069]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the control unit of Sanchez, with the data generation controlling the vibration as taught by Mott, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for more specific and accurate training of the pet, since it is well known to use controllers for getting data on a pet to train against specific behaviors.
Regarding Claim 30, Sanchez as modified teaches the device of 26.
Sanchez fails to disclose the device, wherein the at least one housing comprises at least one of: a water-resistant rubber, a rubber-like material, silicon, or soft plastic.
However, Chamberlain teaches the device, wherein the at least one housing comprises at least one of: a water-resistant rubber, a rubber-like material, silicon, or soft plastic (“The housing may be formed from materials suitable to retain and protect the components of the toy, such as a rigid polymer, a flexible polymer such as an elastomer, a rubber,” Page 9 Paragraph 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the housing of Sanchez, to be rubber as taught by Chamberlain, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help protect the device from damage from the pet, and help increase the length of life of the device.
Regarding Claim 31, Sanchez as modified teaches the device of 26. Sanchez further discloses the device, wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least a pressure or force sensor (pressure sensor Paragraph [0029]).
Regarding Claim 32, Sanchez as modified teaches the device of 26.
Sanchez fails to disclose the device, wherein the at least one housing further comprises at least one of: a clock, a Wi-Fi antenna, a cellular antenna, or a Bluetooth antenna.
However, Mott teaches a pet training device, wherein the at least one housing further comprises at least one of: a clock, a Wi-Fi antenna, a cellular antenna, or a Bluetooth antenna (Paragraph [0108]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the housing of Sanchez, with the Bluetooth antenna of Mott, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for faster communication without the use of wires or cords.
Regarding Claim 33, Sanchez as modified teaches the device of 26. Sanchez further discloses the device, wherein the at least one pet interaction comprises at least one of: play with the device (“the notification may be sent in the form of a push notification to the computing device and notifies a user that a pet is playing with the electronic toy.” Paragraph [0026]), a breathing on the device, a proximity to the device, a vocalization proximate to the device, a contact with the device, or one or more bites on the device (Paragraph [0029]).
Regarding Claim 36, Sanchez as modified teaches the device of 26.
Sanchez fails to explicitly disclose the device, wherein the at least one housing is a first housing, the device further comprising: a second housing, the second housing configured to couple to the first housing, the second housing comprising at least one of: a second sensor that is different from the at least one sensor, an antenna that is different from any antenna in the first housing, or other component that is different from the at least one sensor, antenna, or other component in the first housing.
However, Chamberlain teaches a similar pet amusement device, wherein the at least one housing is a first housing (pet toy 100), the device further comprising: a second housing, the second housing configured to couple to the first housing (“The toy may comprise a cover (not shown) which may be removable and or replaceable” Page 9 Paragraph 2), the second housing comprising at least one of: a second sensor that is different from the at least one sensor, an antenna that is different from any antenna in the first housing, or other component that is different from the at least one sensor, antenna, or other component in the first housing (the cover is different from any component of the first housing).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the housing of Sanchez, with the second housing of Chamberlain, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow to user to easily keep the device clean, as well as allowing the user to customize the device to suit the needs or wants of specific animals (Chamberlain Page 9 Paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 37, Sanchez as modified teaches the device of 26.
Sanchez fails to disclose the device, further comprising at least one of: at least one charging port operably coupled to the power source; or at least one data port operably coupled to the processor.
However, Mott teaches a pet training device further comprising at least one of: at least one charging port operably coupled to the power source (“Device 300 can also include a charging port, which can be used to charge the battery. The charging port can be, for example, a type-A universal serial bus (“USB”) port, a type-B USB port, a mini-USB port, a micro-USB port, or any other type of port.” Paragraph [0056]); or at least one data port operably coupled to the processor.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Sanchez, with the charging port of Mott, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for more reliable communication between devices.
Regarding Claim 51, Sanchez as modified teaches the device of 36.
Sanchez fails to disclose the device, wherein the second housing is configured to modify one or more of a size, shape and texture of the pet amusement device when coupled to the first housing.
However, Chamberlain teaches a similar pet device wherein the second housing is configured to modify one or more of a size, shape and texture of the pet amusement device when coupled to the first housing (“The toy may comprise a cover (not shown) which may be removable and or replaceable for purposes such as: washing; replacement when damaged; change of appearance from one occasion to the next to stimulate renewed play; change of surface material to suit individual animal preferences or user tastes; change of surface roughness and texture to suit the type and size of pet” Page 9 Paragraph 2 of translation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the housing of Sanchez, with the second housing of Chamberlain, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to customize the device to suit the needs or wants of specific animals (Chamberlain Page 9 Paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 38, Sanchez discloses a method of operating a pet amusement device (pet toy; Paragraph [0025]), the device comprising:
at least one housing (toy body; Paragraph [0025]) comprising, at least in part:
a memory (data storage device; Paragraph [0034]);
a transceiver (input detection device Paragraph [0025]; transceiver Paragraph [0027]);
a processor (control unit Paragraph [0025]); and
at least one sensor (input detection device; Paragraph [0025]; pressure sensor Paragraph [0029]),
the method comprising:
detecting, via the at least one sensor, one or more parameters corresponding to at least one pet interaction with the device (Paragraph [0029]);
receiving, by the processor, the one or more parameters (“A control unit is also provided and is communicably coupled to the input detection device and to the interactive output device, enabling communications between the control unit, the input detection device, and the interactive output device (Step B).” Paragraph [0025]);
transmitting, via the transceiver, one or more signals corresponding to data to one or more remote servers (notification to computing device; Paragraph [0026; Figure 4).
Sanchez fails to disclose a power source; generating, by the processor, the data corresponding to the one or more parameters; and transmitting, via the transceiver, one or more signals corresponding to the data to one or more remote servers.
However, Chamberlain teaches a similar pet amusement device comprising a power source (battery 144).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the amusement device of Sanchez, with the power source of Chamberlain with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for greater freedom of movement of the device without corded attachments.
Additionally, Mott teaches a pet training method comprising detecting, via the at least one sensor, one or more parameters corresponding to at least one pet interaction with the device (“the wearable device can sense, detect, or collect data related to the pet from one or more sensors.” Paragraph [0077]); generating, by the processor, the data corresponding to the one or more parameters (health indicators step 502 and 503 Figure 5; Paragraphs [0080-0081]; “The steps of the method shown in FIG. 5 can be performed by a server, the wearable device, and/or the mobile device.” Paragraph [0077]); and transmitting, via the transceiver, one or more signals corresponding to the data to one or more remote servers (“In certain non-limiting embodiments, the collected and aggregated data can be displayed to the user through, for example, a mobile application on a user device” Paragraph [0083]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the control unit of Sanchez, with the data generation and transmission as taught by Mott, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for more specific and accurate training of the pet, since it is well known to use controllers for getting data on a pet to train against specific behaviors
Regarding Claim 39, Sanchez as modified teaches the method of 38. Sanchez further discloses the method, wherein the device further comprises: at least one haptic motor configured to generate at least some vibration through the at least one housing (vibration motor Paragraph [0028]; “The vibration motor is able to vibrate the electronic toy in response to the interactive input. The vibration motor is actuated as the interactive output during step (G), allowing the electronic toy to vibrate.” Paragraph [0031]).
Sanchez fails to disclose the method further comprising: controlling the at least some vibration based on at least one of: an occurrence of a predetermined condition, or a command from the one or more remote servers.
However, Mott teaches the method further comprising: controlling the at least some vibration based on at least one of: an occurrence of a predetermined condition, or a command from the one or more remote servers (“the server can instruct the wearable device to turn on an illumination device based on the wellness assessment of the pet, as shown in step 504.” Paragraph [0084]; Figures 2 and 5; “In certain non-limiting embodiments, instead of an illumination device the wearable device can include any other indicator, such as a sound device, which can include a speaker, and/or a vibration device.” Paragraph [0069]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the control unit of Sanchez, with the data generation controlling the vibration as taught by Mott, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for more specific and accurate training of the pet, since it is well known to use controllers for getting data on a pet to train against specific behaviors.
Regarding Claim 41, Sanchez as modified teaches the method of 38. Sanchez further discloses the method, wherein the at least one pet interaction comprises at least one of: play with the device (“the notification may be sent in the form of a push notification to the computing device and notifies a user that a pet is playing with the electronic toy.” Paragraph [0026]), a breathing on the device, a proximity to the device, a vocalization proximate to the device, a contact with the device, or one or more bites on the device (Paragraph [0029]).
Regarding Claim 44, Sanchez as modified teaches the method of 38.
Sanchez fails to disclose the method, wherein the device further comprises at least one of: a charging port, or a data port, the method further comprising at least one of: charging the power source via the charging port; or communicating with one or more remote servers via the data port.
However, Chamberlain teaches the method, wherein the device further comprises at least one of: a charging port, or a data port (“one or both of the base unit or the pet toy itself is/are controllable remotely, for example by local PC by wireless or wired LAN, USB” Page 17 Paragraph 4), the method further comprising at least one of: charging the power source via the charging port; or communicating with one or more remote servers via the data port (Page 17 Paragraph 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Sanchez, with the wired data connection of Chamberlain, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for more reliable communication between devices.
Regarding Claim 45, Sanchez as modified teaches the method of 38.
Sanchez fails to disclose the method, further comprising wirelessly transmitting, via the transceiver, the data to the one or more remote servers.
However, Mott teaches a similar method further comprising wirelessly transmitting, via the transceiver, the data to the one or more remote servers (“In certain non-limiting embodiments, the collected and aggregated data can be displayed to the user through, for example, a mobile application on a user device” Paragraph [0083]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the control unit of Sanchez, with the data generation and transmission as taught by Mott, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for more specific and accurate training of the pet, since it is well known to use controllers for getting data on a pet to train against specific behaviors
Regarding Claim 48, Sanchez as modified teaches the method of 38. Sanchez further discloses the method, wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least a pressure or force sensor (pressure sensor Paragraph [0029]), the method further comprising: detecting, via the pressure or force sensor, one or more bite interactions by the pet with the device (“The interactive input may vary and includes interactions such as bites and movements.” Paragraph [0026]; Paragraph [0029]).
Claims 46-47 and 49-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez in view of Chamberlain and Mott as applied to claims 33 and 41 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20210072643).
Regarding Claim 46, Sanchez as modified teaches the device of 33.
Sanchez fails to disclose the processor is further configured to process the data with one or more algorithms stored in the memory to determine at least one of: a bite force of one or more interactions, or a bite evenness of one or more interactions.
However, Mott teaches a similar pet training device wherein the processor is further configured to process the data with one or more algorithms stored in the memory to determine a health condition (algorithm described in Paragraphs [0087-0089] for step 503 wellness assessment based on generated data aka health indicators)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the processor of Sanchez, with the algorithms stored to process health condition data as taught by Mott, with reasonable expectation of success in order to help provide the user with important information about the pet’s health.
Additionally, Kim teaches a similar pet interactive device wherein the processor is further configured to determine at least one of: a bite force of one or more interactions, or a bite evenness of one or more interactions (“a display panel 210 for displaying the number of bite force determined by the control unit 400” Claim 7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor of Sanchez, to determine the bite force as taught by Kim, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help the user check the oral health of the animal (Kim Page 3 Paragraph 5).
Regarding Claim 47, Sanchez as modified teaches the device of 33.
Sanchez fails to disclose the device, wherein the processor is further configured to: generate the data from the at least one sensor such that the one or more remote servers process the data with one or more algorithms stored in a server memory to determine at least one of: a bite force of one or more interactions, or a bite evenness of one or more interactions.
However, Mott teaches the device, wherein the processor is further configured to: generate the data from the at least one sensor such (health indicators step 502 and 503 Figure 5; Paragraphs [0080-0081]) that the one or more servers process the data with one or more algorithms stored in a server memory to determine a health condition (algorithm described in Paragraphs [0080] and [0088] for steps 502, 505, and 506).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the processor of Sanchez, with the algorithms stored to determine a health condition as taught by Mott, with reasonable expectation of success in order to help provide the user with important information about the pet’s health.
Additionally, Kim teaches a similar pet interactive device wherein the processor is further configured to determine at least one of: a bite force of one or more interactions, or a bite evenness of one or more interactions (“a display panel 210 for displaying the number of bite force determined by the control unit 400” Claim 7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor of Sanchez, to determine the bite force as taught by Kim, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help the user check the oral health of the animal (Kim Page 3 Paragraph 5).
Regarding Claim 49, Sanchez as modified teaches the method of 41.
Sanchez fails to disclose processing the data with one or more algorithms stored in the memory; and determining, via the processing, at least one of: a bite force of one or more interactions, or a bite evenness of one or more interactions.
However, Mott teaches a similar method comprising: processing the data with one or more algorithms stored in the memory to determine a health condition (algorithm described in Paragraphs [0087-0089] for step 503 wellness assessment based on generated data aka health indicators)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the processor of Sanchez, with the algorithms stored to process the health condition data as taught by Mott, with reasonable expectation of success in order to help provide the user with important information about the pet’s health.
Additionally, Kim teaches a similar pet interactive method comprising determining, via processing, at least one of: a bite force of one or more interactions, or a bite evenness of one or more interactions (“a display panel 210 for displaying the number of bite force determined by the control unit 400” Claim 7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor of Sanchez, to determine the bite force as taught by Kim, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help the user check the oral health of the animal (Kim Page 3 Paragraph 5).
Regarding Claim 50, Sanchez as modified teaches the method of 41.
Sanchez fails to disclose the method, further comprising: generating, via the processor, the data from the at least one sensor to enable processing of the data by the one or more remote servers with one or more algorithms stored in a server memory for determining at least one of: a bite force of one or more interactions, or a bite evenness of one or more interactions.
However, Mott teaches the method, further comprising: generating, via the processor, the data from the at least one sensor (health indicators step 502 and 503 Figure 5; Paragraphs [0080-0081]) to enable processing of the data by the one or more servers with one or more algorithms stored in a server memory (algorithm described in Paragraphs [0087-0089] for step 503 wellness assessment based on generated data aka health indicators).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the processor of Sanchez, with the algorithms stored to determine a health condition as taught by Mott, with reasonable expectation of success in order to help provide the user with important information about the pet’s health.
Additionally, Kim teaches a similar pet interactive method comprising determining at least one of: a bite force of one or more interactions, or a bite evenness of one or more interactions (“a display panel 210 for displaying the number of bite force determined by the control unit 400” Claim 7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor of Sanchez, to determine the bite force as taught by Kim, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help the user check the oral health of the animal (Kim Page 3 Paragraph 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 11 of remarks that “Furthermore, the alleged "stimulation" described by the Examiner is an illumination device (LED) for health alerts or geo-fencing (Id., 1 [0084], [0095], [0110]). Mott does not teach or suggest controlling a haptic motor or vibration for amusement purposes via a remote server command.” The Office respectfully disagrees. Mott clearly teaches vibration (“In certain non-limiting embodiments, instead of an illumination device the wearable device can include any other indicator, such as a sound device, which can include a speaker, and/or a vibration device.” Paragraph [0069]).
In response to applicant's argument that Sanchez and Mott are different types of devices and would not have been obvious to combine the two references, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Sanchez and Mott are interactive pet devices with sensors for sensing a parameter of the pet and an output device for outputting a stimulation to the pet, therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have combined Sanchez and Mott.
Applicant argues on page 12 that Leib fails to teach the second housing. Chamberlain (GB 2492110) now teaches the second housing as described in the currently presented rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642