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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claim 2 was previously withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-20 have been considered on their merits, as discussed below.
Claim 14
Applicant improperly attempted to withdraw claim 14. Claim 14 was previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d). Upon a 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection, applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 reads “The animal drink dispenser apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one passageway comprises a passageway defined by the bottom tray.” Claim 1, however, recites “at least one passageway, defined entirely within a structure of the bottom tray.” Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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, 3-7, 11, 14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 3,112,733 to Arnott (“Arnott”).
Regarding claim 1, Arnott discloses an animal drink dispenser apparatus, comprising: a housing (11) defining an interior volume adapted to store a supply of liquid; a bottom tray (27/28) releasably attachable to a bottom of the housing defining a trough; at least one passageway (29), defined entirely within a structure of the bottom tray (FIG. 3), fluidly communicating the interior volume of the housing with the trough by force of gravity; and a vent apparatus (18) positioned within the interior volume adapted to equalize a pressure in a volume of air above the liquid in the housing, which pressure is reduced when said liquid is dispensed to the trough, with the ambient air, wherein the vent apparatus is a hollow tube (Col. 2, lines 3-23; FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Arnott discloses wherein the vent apparatus comprises a vent tube (18) having an open upper end (open at 22) disposed inside the housing and an open lower end (open at 21) reversibly submerged into the liquid dispensed through the at least one passageway to the trough such that the vent tube fluidly communicates the ambient air to the volume of air in the housing to equalize pressure therebetween when the liquid in the trough is consumed, whereby a level of the liquid in the trough drops and causes the open lower end of said vent tube to reemerge from said liquid (Col. 2, lines 3-23; FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Arnott discloses wherein the open lower end is adapted to seat within a socket defined by a sidewall of the bottom tray, the socket being substantially concentric with at least a portion of the at least one passageway (FIG. 3) (note: the socket is not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 5, Arnott discloses wherein the lower end is adjustably positioned at a desired distance from the bottom of the trough to maintain a desired volume of the liquid dispensed to said trough (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Arnott discloses a wall (28e) defined by at least a portion of the bottom tray, the at least one passageway (29) being defined by said wall (Col. 2, lines 41-43).
Regarding claim 7, Arnott discloses wherein the vent tube is connected to the wall (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Arnott discloses wherein the bottom tray is releasably sealed to the bottom of the housing (FIG. 1; Col. 2, lines 29-40).
Regarding claim 14, Arnott discloses wherein the at least one passageway comprises a passageway (29) defined by the bottom tray (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Arnott discloses an animal drink dispenser apparatus, comprising: a housing (11) defining an interior volume adapted to store a supply of liquid; a bottom tray (27/28) releasably attachable to a bottom of the housing defining a trough; a passageway (29), defined entirely within a structure of the bottom tray (FIG. 3), fluidly communicating the interior volume of the housing with the trough by force of gravity, said passageway being positioned in proximity to an end of the trough (FIGS. 1, 3); and a vent apparatus (18) adapted to equalize a pressure in a volume of air above the liquid in the housing, which is reduced when said liquid is dispensed into the trough, with the ambient air, wherein the vent apparatus is a hollow tube (Col. 2, lines 3-23; FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Arnott discloses an animal drink dispenser apparatus, comprising: a housing (11) defining an interior volume adapted to store a supply of liquids; a bottom tray (27/28) releasably attachable to a bottom of the housing defining a trough, wherein at least one portion of the trough has a concaving contour (FIG. 1); one or more passageways (29), defined entirely within a structure of the bottom tray (FIG. 3), fluidly communicating the interior volume of the housing with the trough by force of gravity (FIGS. 1, 3); and a vent apparatus (18), positioned within the interior volume, the vent apparatus adapted to equalize a pressure in a volume of air above the liquid in the housing, which is reduced when said liquid is dispensed into the trough, with the ambient air (Col. 2, lines 3-23; FIG. 3), wherein the vent apparatus is seated with respect to the passageway in proximity to the at least one portion such that the vent apparatus fluidly communicates the ambient air into the volume of air based on a level of the liquid in the at least one portion of the trough (Col. 2, lines 3-23; FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Arnott discloses wherein the at least one portion is defined in proximity to the at least one of the passageways such that obstructions are prevented from blocking said passageway (FIGS. 1, 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 8-10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnott, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,274,365 to Peters (“Peters”).
Regarding claim 8, Arnott teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the bottom tray further defines a liquid inlet for refilling the housing.
Peters teaches an animal drink dispenser apparatus, comprising a bottom tray (10/20) and a housing (C), wherein the bottom tray defines a liquid inlet (102) for refilling the housing (FIGS. 1-3, 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Arnott by further including the inlet, as taught by Peters, in order to reduce the amount of user labor required to refill the apparatus with liquid.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Arnott and Peters teaches each and every element of claim 8, as discussed above, and it further teaches wherein the vent apparatus allows the volume of air in the housing to be pushed out therethrough to the ambient air when said housing is being refilled through the liquid inlet such that the volume of air is prevented from pressurizing (Arnott at FIGS. 1, 3; Peters at FIGS. 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Arnott and Peters teaches each and every element of claim 8, as discussed above, and it further teaches the liquid inlet securely engages at least one liquid supply source having a corresponding portion (Peters at FIGS. 2-3), but it does not explicitly teach wherein the liquid inlet is internally threaded to securely engage with at least one liquid supply source having a corresponding threaded portion. It is well settled, however, that substituting one equivalent component for another is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular component was significant. MPEP at 2144.06, citing Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of the Arnott and Peters combination so that there is a threaded engagement between the liquid inlet and the supply source, in order to prevent leakage.
Regarding claim 17, Arnott teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the housing is interconnected with one or more other housings.
Peters teaches an animal drink dispenser apparatus, wherein the housing is interconnected with one or more other housings (FIG. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Arnott so that the housing is interconnected with one or more other housings, in order to provide fluid to many animals.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnott, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,387,566 to Graves et al. (“Graves”).
Regarding claim 12, Arnott teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the bottom tray further defines an inner ridge and an outer ridge concentrically and opposingly configured to the other, the bottom tray being sealed to the bottom of the housing by fitting a bottom edge of the housing between the inner ridge and the outer ridge.
Graves teaches an animal drink dispenser apparatus, comprising a bottom tray (18/20/22) and a housing (14), wherein the bottom tray (at 18) further defines an inner ridge and an outer ridge concentrically and opposingly configured to the other (FIGS. 2-3), the bottom tray being sealed to the bottom of the housing by fitting a bottom edge of the housing between the inner ridge and the outer ridge (Col. 3, lines 45-56; FIGS. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Arnott so that the bottom tray further defines an inner ridge and an outer ridge concentrically and opposingly configured to the other, the bottom tray being sealed to the bottom of the housing by fitting a bottom edge of the housing between the inner ridge and the outer ridge, as taught by Graves, in order to facilitate the connection and removal of the housing to the bottom tray.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Arnott and Graves teaches each and every element of claim 12, as discussed above, and it further teaches wherein the outer ridge defines one or more tabs extending therefrom that permit the flexing of the inner ridge and an outer ridge to create interlocking engagement with a corresponding lip that extends from the bottom of the housing (Graves at FIGS. 2-3).
Claim 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnott, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, Arnott teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one passageway comprises more than one passageway defined radially on the bottom tray to allow the liquid in the housing to be dispensed therethrough to the trough.
It is well settled, however, that where the only difference between the prior art and claimed invention is a duplicated part, the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from the prior art unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04, citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Arnott so that the at least one passageway comprises more than one passageway defined radially on the bottom tray to allow the liquid in the housing to be dispensed therethrough to the trough, in order to increase the amount of fluid is available to the animals.
Regarding claim 16, Arnott teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein each of the at least one passageway is defined to be from about 1/16" to about 2" in width, and about 1" to about 4" in depth.
It is well settled, however, that where the only difference between the prior art and the claimed device is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04, citing In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Arnott so that each of the at least one passageway is defined to be from about 1/16" to about 2" in width, and about 1" to about 4" in depth, in order to give the animals an appropriate amount of fluid.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arnott discloses a passageway, defined entirely within a structure of the bottom tray (FIG. 3). It is noted that the claim limitation is quite broad. Also, the passageway of Arnott acts to fluidly communicate the interior volume of the housing with the trough by force of gravity (FIG. 3). Combining the teachings of Arnott and Peters would not destroy the principal operation of Arnott. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Arnott by further including the inlet, as taught by Peters, in order to reduce the amount of user labor required to refill the apparatus with liquid.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MARISA CONLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4387. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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.
/MARISA V CONLON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643