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 .
Claim Status
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently being examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 contains a typo, "that the" which should be "than the". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim(s) 7 and 13, this application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "de-lidding mechanism" in Claim(s) 7 and 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim of "computer readable memory" and "computer storage media" is directed to a signal per se, with scope encompassing statutory and non-statutory embodiments [See MPEP 2106.03(II)].
Regarding Independent Claim 17, the Office recommends amending the language to recite “non-transitory computer storage media” in order to more clearly claim a patent eligible category of subject matter.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as a result of the rejection of Independent Claim 17.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Gordon et al. (US 20170202178 A1 as cited in IDS, hereinafter referred to as Gordon).
Regarding Independent Claim 10, Gordon discloses:
A method implemented by an automatic animal feeding system [See at least: Title, Abstract], the method comprising:
receiving, from a sensor assembly associated with a feeding port corresponding to an opening on an enclosure of the automatic animal feeding system, a sensor signal indicative of a weight measurement [See at least: Para. 0062 "controller 80 may cooperate with different sensors...sensors that sense the level of food in the food container" and 0075, Para. 0106 “A level sensor may be provided to detect the amount of food consumed from the container (e.g., an optical detector, RFID, or a load cell for weighing the food)” and Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 50 and 82];
determining, over a period of time and from the sensor assembly, a change in the weight measurement [See at least: Paras. 0062, 0075,106]; and
associating the change in the weight measurement with an amount of food consumed by a particular pet [See at least: Paras. 0062, 0075, 106].
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ovrahim et al. (WO 2021225531 A1, hereinafter referred to as Ovrahim) in view of Gordon et al. (US 20170202178 A1, hereinafter referred to as Gordon).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Ovrahim discloses a pet food system with sensors, a rotary plate, enclosure, and motor, as well as computer memory and a processor. It fails to explicitly disclose a sensor sending a weight measurement signal and the controller using said signal along with a time measurement to control the system. However, Gordon, in the same field of endeavor — automated pet food/feeding systems — teaches what Ovrahim lacks, i.e. the weight/load measurement sensor, signal, and associated control.
A pet food system, comprising:
a sensor assembly [See at least Ovrahim: "such as the use of sensors which are strategically placed inside the pet food dispenser 100"];
a rotary plate enclosed within an enclosure and comprising a food pod holder [See at least Ovrahim: Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 615, 105, 200, and 210];
a base rotation motor enclosed within the enclosure and configured to drive rotation of the rotary plate about an axis [See at least Ovrahim: Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 610/106 and 600, and "a rotation of the rotatory wheel 615 about a centre axis"];
one or more processors [See at least Ovrahim: "the pet food dispenser 100 further comprises a control unit to automate and manage the operations...may include a processer", and at least Gordon: Ref. Numeral 80 “Controller (processor)]; and
computer memory having computer-readable instructions embodied thereon, that, when executed by at least one processor of the one or more processors [See at least Ovrahim: "control unit may further comprise a memory storage"], cause the pet food system to:
receive, from the sensor assembly and when the food pod holder aligns with a portion of the sensor assembly, a sensor signal indicative of a weight measurement [See at least Gordon: Para. 0062 "controller 80 may cooperate with different sensors...sensors that sense the level of food in the food container" and see Para. 0106];
determine, over a period of time and from the sensor assembly, a change in the weight measurement [See at least Gordon: Paras. 0062, 0106]; and
associate the change in the weight measurement with an amount of food consumed by a particular pet [See at least Gordon: Paras. 0062, 0106].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated pet food system of Ovrahim with the weight measurement sensor and time measurement indicator of Gordon to provide additional inputs to the controller for operation of the pet food system.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate said teachings to increase functionality and dynamic control of the pet food system and its programming, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 2, Ovrahim describes a pet food system with sensors, but fails to describe a weight sensor or its position in the system. However, Gordon teaches a weight sensor aligned with an opening of the pet food system.
the sensor assembly comprises a weight sensor vertically aligned with an opening on a top surface of the pet food system, wherein the opening is at a higher elevation that the weight sensor [See at least Gordon: Para. 0062 and Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 50 and 82].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pet food system of Ovrahim with the weight sensor and its specific placement under the food holder opening to effectively utilize the signal it generates to measure the current amount of food in said holder.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate said teachings to provide more data to the controller to better track remaining available food in the holder and execute any instructions reliant on that value, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 4, Ovrahim describes computer readable instructions for control of the pet food system, but does not incorporate a weight measurement sensor signal nor a programmed threshold value associated with said signal. However, Gordon teaches a weight sensor and signal utilized in that manner.
the computer-readable instructions [See at least Ovrahim: "control unit may further comprise a memory storage"] cause the pet food system to:
determine, from the sensor signal, that the change in the weight measurement is below or above a threshold value of weight [See at least Gordon: Paras. 0062, 0075]; and
based at least on the weight measurement being below or above the threshold value, send a control signal to actuate the base rotation motor and cause the rotary plate enclosed within the enclosure to rotate about the axis [See at least Ovrahim: Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 610 and 600, and "a rotation of the rotatory wheel 615 about a centre axis", and at least Gordon: Para. 0062 "controller 80 may be used to activate, modify and stop the operating cycle", 0075].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer readable instructions of Ovrahim’s pet food system with the signal sent by the weight measurement sensor and include any threshold values based on said signal.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate said teachings to allow for more advanced and dynamic program instruction sets to control the feeding system based on current weight as compared to upper and lower limits, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 5, Ovrahim discloses a pet food system with sensors, it fails to explicitly disclose types of sensors and their potential uses beyond basic mechanical functionality. However, Gordon discloses various sensors that are or may be incorporated into an embodiment to perform numerous functions.
the control signal is further sent based on at least one of: an image of a food pod as captured by a camera, a radio frequency reading captured by a radio frequency identification (RFID) sensor, a weight measurement associated with the food pod, or a chemical reading taken from the food pod by a chemical sensing sensor [See at least Gordon: Para. 0062 "sensors at the feeding station 16 that sense the animal eating, including frequency of eating, speed of eating and other factors (e.g., infrared or optical sensors, cameras, webcams, etc.)" and Para. 0075].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pet food system of Ovrahim with the various sensors disclosed by Gordon to have various options available in a variety of embodiments based on needs or performance.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate said teachings to expand the capabilities of the automated system and allow for additional controls, functions, or adjustments to said system, increasing its performance and efficiency, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 6, Ovrahim describes a base rotation motor as part of a pet food system along with the potential for delays to be utilized in the system, it fails to explicitly disclose a timer or counter and associated signal utilized in the control of the system. However, Gordon teaches what Ovrahim lacks.
the instructions further cause the pet food system to:
receive a time indication indicative of a period of time [See at least Gordon: Para. 0075 “Controller 80 (FIG. 1) controls the logic and timing for withdrawing the food container 20, such as but not limited to, a function of time (e.g., average time for eating)”]; and
determine that the period of time has expired, wherein the control signal is sent to the base rotation motor based on the period of time having expired [See at least Gordon: Para. 0075].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pet food system controller of Ovrahim with the time indication logic of Gordon to assist with monitoring the automated system and increase functionality when used in conjunction with other included sensors.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate said teachings to increase the functionality and efficiency of the system by allowing for enhanced automation and timed monitoring, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Independent Claim 17, Ovrahim teaches an automatic animal feeding system that comprises computer storage media with instructions thereon for performing associated operations based on sensor signals. It fails to describe a specific weight sensor and signal and utilization of such in control of the system. However, Gordon teaches a weight sensor aligned with the opening that is utilized in that manner.
Computer storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, that, when executed by at least one computer processor of an automatic animal feeding system, cause computing operations to be performed, the operations comprising [See at least Ovrahim: "the pet food dispenser 100 further comprises a control unit to automate and manage the operations of the pet food dispenser 100. The control unit may include a processer…may further comprise a memory storage where user instructions can be pre-stored therein", and at least Gordon: Ref. Numeral 80 “Controller (processor)]:
receiving, from a sensor assembly associated with a feeding port corresponding to an opening on an enclosure of the automatic animal feeding system, a sensor signal indicative of a weight measurement [See at least Gordon: Para. 0062 "controller 80 may cooperate with different sensors...sensors that sense the level of food in the food container" and 0075];
determining, over a period of time and from the sensor assembly, a change in the weight measurement [See at least Gordon: Paras. 0062, 0075]; and
associating the change in the weight measurement with an amount of food consumed by a particular pet [See at least Gordon: Paras. 0062, 0075].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer storage media containing computer-executable instructions of the pet food system of Ovrahim with the weight sensor and time logic of Gordon to utilize them in conjunction for control of the system and its executable instructions.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated said teachings to increase the functionality of the measurement system and efficiency of the controls, utilizing the teachings in concert to enable or enhance automated metrics tracking, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 18, Ovrahim describes the computer storage media for the pet food system, comprising an enclosure, rotary plate, and rotation motor, as well as the control thereof. It does not disclose that computer storage media interacting explicitly with a weight measurement sensor signal and comparing that to a programmed threshold value, as well as using that value for system control. However, Gordon does describe a weight sensor and signal utilized to control a similar pet food system.
operations further comprise:
determining, from the sensor signal, that the weight measurement is below a threshold value of weight [See at least Gordon: Para. 0062, 0075]; and
based at least on the weight measurement being below the threshold value, sending a control signal to a base rotation motor enclosed within the enclosure to actuate the base rotation motor and cause a rotary plate enclosed within the enclosure to rotate about an axis [See at least Ovrahim: Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 610 and 600, and "a rotation of the rotatory wheel 615 about a centre axis", and at least Gordon: Para. 0062 "controller 80 may be used to activate, modify and stop the operating cycle" and 0075].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer executable instructions of Ovrahim’s pet food system with the signal sent by the weight measurement sensor and include any threshold values based on said signal.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate said teachings to allow for more advanced and dynamic program instruction sets to control the feeding system based on current weight as compared to upper and lower limits, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 19, Ovrahim describes computer storage media and operations executed thereon, but fails to disclose a timer, counter, or other time measurement indicator. However, Gordon does teach a timer as part of a similar pet food system.
the operations further comprise:
receiving a time indication indicative of a period of time [See at least Gordon: Para. 0075]; and
determining that the period of time has expired, wherein the control signal is sent to the base rotation motor based on the period of time having expired [See at least Gordon: Para. 0075].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pet food system controller of Ovrahim with the time indication logic of Gordon to assist with monitoring the automated system and increase functionality when used in conjunction with other included sensors.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate said teachings to increase the functionality and efficiency of the system by allowing for enhanced automation and timed monitoring, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 20, Ovrahim discloses the computer storage media and an associated client device with a user interface with a link to the controller. It does not teach a database for tracking amount of food consumed or other information about a particular pet. However, Gordon teaches what Ovrahim lacks in this regard.
the association and the amount of food consumed is stored in a database comprising information associated with the particular pet and a particular user, wherein an indication of the amount of food consumed is communicated to a client device for presentation on a graphical user interface [See at least Ovrahim: "the control unit can be wiredly or wirelessly linked to a user interface device 180 for managing the operations of the user interface", and at least Gordon: Para. 0062 "controller 80 may also control operation of an Internet-based system or app for a mobile device that is used to monitor how many food containers have been used, to monitor animal feeding behavior"].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit and user interface of Ovrahim’s pet food system with the monitoring and tracking capabilities of Gordon’s pet food system and its associated controller and user interface.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate said teachings to enhance the functionality of the automated pet feeding system and provide more user feedback and control, as well as increase metrics tracking capabilities, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ovrahim et al. (WO 2021225531 A1, hereinafter referred to as Ovrahim) in view of Gordon et al. (US 20170202178 A1, hereinafter referred to as Gordon) and further in view of Vachula et al. (US 20200253162 A1, hereinafter referred to as Vachula).
Regarding Claim 9, Ovrahim in view of Gordon discloses a pet food system with one or more processors and associated memory, along with a sensor assembly as described, and Gordon does describe the sensor as within the enclosure, neither reference explicitly teaches the processor or memory as within the enclosure. However, Vachula, in regards to an automated pet food system, does teach electronic components being contained in the primary enclosure.
the sensor assembly, the one or more processors, or the computer memory are enclosed within the enclosure [See at least Ovrahim: "the pet food dispenser 100 further comprises a control unit to automate and manage the operations...may include a processer" and "control unit may further comprise a memory storage", and at least Gordon: Para. 0062 and Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 82, as well as at least Vachula: Para. 0028 "rear portion 12 of the lower tray is configured to contain...various computing elements (such as a processor, memory, wireless transmitters, etc.)"].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pet food system of Ovrahim in view of Gordon, further in view of the pet food system of Vachula to place the controller and associated equipment explicitly inside the enclosure of the system.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate said teachings to provide localized control of the system regardless of system placement or connection access to any external sources, reducing error chances and delays in processing and increasing capabilities of said control system, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (US 20170202178 A1, hereinafter referred to as Gordon) in view of Ovrahim et al. (WO 2021225531 A1, hereinafter referred to as Ovrahim) .
Regarding Claim 11, Gordon teaches a pet food system comprising a weight measurement sensor and associated signal with threshold, but Gordon’s system does not utilize said signal to control a rotary motor to rotate a plate about an axis. However, Ovrahim teaches a pet food system that does comprise said motor and rotary plate and a controller to use signals for its control.
The method of claim 10, further comprising:
determining, from the sensor signal, that the weight measurement is below a threshold value of weight [See at least Gordon: Paras. 0062, 0075]; and
based at least on the weight measurement being below the threshold value, sending a control signal to a base rotation motor enclosed within the enclosure to actuate the base rotation motor and cause a rotary plate enclosed within the enclosure to rotate about an axis [See at least Gordon: Para. 0062 "controller 80 may be used to activate, modify and stop the operating cycle", and at least Ovrahim: Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 610/106 as part of 600 and "a rotation of the rotatory wheel 615 about a centre axis"].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated pet food system of Gordon with included weight measurement sensor, time indication, and threshold values, with the automated rotary pet food system of Ovrahim to allow for control over the rotary system using said teachings.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate said teachings to optimize the use of a weight measurement sensor and associated features with a more efficient rotary system, able to remove or swap the food holder over said sensor when required, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 12, Gordon teaches a weight measurement threshold based on the food holder and contents therein, but does not teach an incorporated rotary plate comprised of the food holder. Ovrahim, however, does teach a rotary plate with a food holder.
the rotary plate comprises a food pod holder, and wherein the threshold value is less than a weight of a food pod sized to fit within the food pod holder [See at least Gordon: Para. 0062 and 0064, and at least Ovrahim: Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 610 as part of 600 and "a rotation of the rotatory wheel 615 about a centre axis"].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pet food system of Gordon with associated equipment with the rotary system of Ovrahim, allowing for movement of the food holder when the underlying weight measurement signal crosses a threshold.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate said teachings to utilize the weight measurement sensor to automatically remove or swap the food holder when a set threshold is crossed, by using a more efficient rotary system for food holder placement, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 13, Gordon teaches a pet food system with a single opening and limited linear movement along with weight measurement and other control logic, but does not allow for further movement of the food holder based on said inputs and logic. Ovrahim teaches additional movement capabilities through a rotary plate system with mechanisms aligned with a food holder on said plate.
rotating the rotary plate causes a position of the food pod holder to change to a first position aligned with a food canister, a second position aligned with a de-lidding mechanism, or a third positioned aligned with the opening of the enclosure [See at least Ovrahim "When in use, the conveyor unit 600 firstly rotates the rotatory wheel 615 to align the position of the slot 115 to the receptacle cartridge 200 so that the receptacle 210 can be received within the slot 115. Next, the slot 115 with the receptacle 210 is moved to the position of the opener unit 300 for the lid removal operation...The pet foods are ready to serve when the receptacle 210 is transported to the open section 106" and Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control system of the pet food system comprising one opening of Gordon with the rotary pet food system of Ovrahim to allow for movement of the food holder between static positions besides the opening position.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate said teachings to increase the efficiency of the pet food system by using a rotary plate to allow the food holder to transition between different mechanisms with only rotary movement, reducing the complexity of the system, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 14, Gordon teaches the food holder remaining within the enclosure while in transit between a first and second position.
the food pod holder remains within the enclosure while in or transitioning between the first position and the second position [See at least Gordon: Para. 0064-0071 and Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 60, 14, 46, 64, and 50].
Regarding Claim 15, Gordon teaches a time indication used by the controller to determine operation of the automated food holder movement, but does not teach a rotary system with a motor to cause rotation of a food holder based on that time logic. Ovrahim teaches what Gordon lacks.
receiving a time indication indicative of a period of time [See at least Gordon: Para. 0075]; and
determining that the period of time has expired, wherein the control signal is sent to the base rotation motor based on the period of time having expired [See at least Gordon: Para. 0075, and at least Ovrahim: Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 610, 600 and "a rotation of the rotatory wheel 615 about a centre axis"].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pet food system of Gordon with limited linear movement based partially on time logic with the rotary-movement based pet food system of Ovrahim.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate said teachings to increase the efficiency of the pet food system, using rotary movement to reduce the complexity of said system, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 16, Gordon teaches using weight measurement and time indication logic to program thresholds for automation of the system, but does not teach a rotary system utilizing said teachings. Ovrahim, however, teaches a similar automated pet food system using a rotary system to accomplish food holder movement.
the control signal is sent to the base rotation motor based on either the period of time expiring or the weight measurement being below the threshold value, whichever is determined first [See at least Gordon: Para. 0062, 0064, 0075, and at least Ovrahim: Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 610, 600 and "a rotation of the rotatory wheel 615 about a centre axis"].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pet food system and control logic therein of Gordon with the rotary food holder movement system of Ovrahim to allow control of the food holder between multiple stations when thresholds are crossed, on a rotary path.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate said teachings to reduce the complexity of the system and increase efficiency by allowing for multiple concurrent threshold-driven operations possible on a rotary system, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and figures in the references as applied to the claims set forth hereinabove for the convenience of the Applicant. While the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures in the cited references may be applicable, as well. It is respectfully requested that the Applicant, in preparing any response to the Office Action, fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, in addition to the context of the passage(s) as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is required to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definitions that are not specifically set forth in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited] because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to F Jervis whose telephone number is (571) 272-2950. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 0730 - 1530.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/F JERVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3655 15 Apr 2026
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights