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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 05 December 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species A and Species B are obvious variants. Applicant argues that Species A (rectangular can with hook structure) and Species B (round can with threads) are not patentably distinct species, both sharing the same technical principle and working principle, and the connection methods (hook-slot engagement and thread connection) both belong to common variants of snap-fit connections in the art, used to achieve the same sealing and quantitative functions. These differences are merely simple substitutions of shape and connection method, and do not generate new functions or technical effects due to differences in shape or connection method, thus they are obvious variants, not patentably distinct inventions.
This is found persuasive because applicant makes of record that Species A and Species B are obvious variants. All claims 1-10 are examined in this office action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claims 1, 5 and 8 references a “top” but this is a relative term to that depends on the orientation of the object or the positioning the of the viewer relative to the object and renders the claim indefinite. Clarification and correction is requested.
Claim 9 appears to be a method of making however the claim set is an apparatus structure. The claim appears to incorporate method steps into an apparatus claim which renders the claim indefinite in nature.
Claims 2-4, 6, 7, 10 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 22-23, “the sealing boss moves the feed outlet away” appears to be a typographical error. It seems that correct wording intended is that --the sealing boss moves out of the way of the feed outlet--
Claim 3, line 9-10, “a sound to achieve an effect of feeding back a pushing progress by the sound,” should be --a sound to indicate a pushing progress,--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
U.S. Patent No. 1,904,756 to Wooster.
Regarding Claim 1, Wooster teaches a highly productive eco-friendly quantitative feeding device, for quantitatively accessing a feed (italics and underlined notations throughout the claim rejection indicates functional language the structure of Wooster is capable of; the claims do not provide a nexus to use with animals or aquatic organisms), comprising: a containing can (Wooster Fig. 1 #1), for containing the feed; a feeder (Wooster Fig. 1 #3 combined), assembled at a can mouth of the containing can, comprising a can cover (Wooster Fig. 1 #3 portion attached at threads of #1) and an assembly frame part (Wooster Fig. 1 portion #3 from #4 down to #11), the assembly frame part being coupled and mounted onto the can cover and having a top area smaller than a top area of the can cover (Wooster Fig. 1 the top of #4 is smaller than the top of #3 above it, as best understood by the indefinite nature of the relative term “top”), the can cover having a feed inlet (Wooster Fig. 1 opening in #1 that feeds into #4), a side of the assembly frame part being provided with an assembly opening (Wooster Fig. 1 opening in #21 that receives #22) and a top surface of the assembly frame part being provided with a feed outlet (Wooster Fig. 1 #11), and a displacement existing between a center point of the feed inlet and a center point of the feed outlet (#4 and #11 are displaced in Fig. 1); and a snap switch (Wooster Fig. 1 #22), comprising a switch frame (Wooster Fig. 1 #12 portion to the right of #17), a pressing part (Wooster Fig. 1 knob end of #22), a measuring hopper (Wooster Fig. 1 #17), a sealing boss (Wooster Fig. 1 #12 portion to the left of #17), and an elastic fastening structure (Wooster Fig. 1 #18), the switch frame having a side coupled to the pressing part (Wooster Fig. 1 portion of #12 connected to #22; to the right of #17) and an opposite side coupled to the measuring hopper (Wooster Fig. 1 portion of #12 connected to #17 and #18; to the left of #17), the sealing boss, and the elastic fastening structure, and the displacement existing between a center point of the measuring hopper and a center point of the sealing boss (Wooster Fig. 1 #17 and #12 to the left of #17), wherein when the snap switch is embedded into the assembly opening and movably assembled into the feeder, a hopper mouth of the measuring hopper is coupled to the feed inlet to receive and accommodate a fixed amount of the feed, and the sealing boss is coupled and sealed with the feed outlet, (Wooster Fig. 1 illustrates the claimed position) when a pressing force is exerted on the pressing part along a direction, the elastic fastening structure is compressed towards an opposite direction, such that the snap switch is moved along the direction for the displacement, and the sealing boss moves the feed outlet away, while the measuring hopper is moved to the feed outlet to unload and discharge the fixed amount of the feed, and when the pressing force is released, the snap switch restores the pressing part, the measuring hopper, and the sealing boss to move towards the opposite direction for the displacement by resilience of the elastic fastening structure (Wooster operates in the claimed manner when a force is pressed on #22; element #17 aligns with #11 and the seal portion of #12 to the left of #17 move away from #11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 1,904,756 to Wooster in view of China Patent CN 109625637 to Ding.
Regarding Claim 2, Wooster teaches an elastic fastening structure (Wooster Fig. 1 #18), but is silent on the claimed structural details of the elastic fastening structure. However, Ding teaches the elastic fastening structure comprises an elastic fastener and a rebound part, the elastic fastener is a substantially curved rib, the rebound part is also a substantially curved rib, and the elastic fastener and the rebound part are disposed opposite to each other, such that a front end of the elastic fastener and a front end of the rebound part are opposite to each other (Ding Fig. 12a, 12b, 12c, 13, 15a, 15b #741 #740 left and right side are the rebound and the elastic fastener), and when the pressing force is exerted on the pressing part, the elastic fastener and the rebound part are contracted in a direction towards a center of the snap switch (Ding Fig. 12c #740 left and right member). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Wooster with the teachings of Ding before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to make it out of plastic to improve long term life of the part as taught by Ding (Ding paragraph [0116]). The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known elastic member with another to obtain predictable results. Ding teaches that the curved ribs are a known alternate equivalent to a spring (Ding Fig. 7a embodiment with spring #324 and Fig. 12a #740).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 1,904,756 to Wooster in view of China Patent CN 112777149 to Liang.
Regarding Claim 5, Wooster teaches an inner side of a top surface of the can cover is a tilted cover that extends outwardly from the feed inlet (Wooster Fig. 1 tilted wall of #4) the tilted cover is provided for enhancing an effect concentrating and sliding the feed towards the feed inlet by a tilt angle of the tilted cover, (italics indicates functional language the structure of Wooster is capable of due to the slanted nature of the wall structure of element #4) and a surface periphery of the top surface of the assembly frame part is formed with a protruding fence (Wooster Fig. 1 portion of #3 surrounding #4) for surrounding the feed inlet to prevent the feed from overflowing and wasting, but is silent on a plurality of tilted covers. However, Liang teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a plurality of titled covers extends outwardly (Liang Fig. 2 and 3 interior of #7 each line represents a titled cover). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Wooster with the teachings of Liang before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to direct flow as taught by Liang. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known titled cover for another to obtain predictable results and/or the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 6, Wooster as modified teaches at least one of the plurality of tilted covers is configured with a different exposed area and a different tilt angle (Wooster Fig. 1 #4 and Liang Fig. 2 inside of the #7, one side has a steeper slope then the other side of #4).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 1,904,756 to Wooster in view of German Patent DE 20208900 to Freischem.
Regarding Claim 7, Wooster is silent on a moisture-resisting film covered onto the can mouth of the containing can for preventing moisture from penetrating, so as to extend an expiration date of the feed before it is unopened for use. However, Freischem teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a moisture-resisting film covered onto the can mouth of the containing can (Freischem Fig. 2 #6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Wooster with the teachings of Freischem before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success to seal off air for proper transport and storage as taught by Freischem (Freischem English translation). The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 1,904,756 to Wooster in view U.S. Patent No. 6,450,371 to Sherman.
Regarding Claim 8, Wooster teaches the containing can is configured to be a
substantially round (Wooster Fig. 1 #1) can having an outer thread formed on an outer side of the can mouth, an inner thread formed on an inner side of an opening of the can cover and the can cover is configured to be corresponsive to the containing can, and the feeder is coupled to the containing can through the outer thread and the inner thread (Wooster Fig. 1 outer threads of #1 and inner threads on #3), and the assembly frame part is configured to be corresponsive to the can cover. Wooster is silent on explicitly teaching the can cover is a substantially semicircular frame with a top area smaller than the top area of the can cover, and the pressing part is substantially fan-shaped, such that when the snap switch is installed into the assembly frame part, the pressing part is partially or wholly exposed from the top area of the assembly frame part, and the top area of the assembly frame part coupled to an exposed area of the pressing part is smaller than or equal to an exposed area of the can mouth of the containing
can. However, Sherman teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide the can cover with a substantially semicircular frame (Sherman Fig. 1 #2) with a top area smaller than the top area (Sherman Fig. 4A #61 top areas as best understood by the indefinite nature of the claim) of the can cover, and the pressing part is substantially fan-shaped (Sherman Fig. 4A #64), such that when the snap switch is installed into the assembly frame part, the pressing part is partially or wholly exposed from the top area of the assembly frame part, and the top area of the assembly frame part coupled to an exposed area of the pressing part is smaller than or equal to an exposed area of the can mouth of the containing
can (Sherman Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Wooster with the teachings of Sherman before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an airtight closing as taught by Sherman. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 1,904,756 to Wooster in view U.S. Patent No. 6,450,371 to Sherman as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of German Patent DE 20208900 to Freischem.
Regarding Claim 9, Wooster as modified is silent on the selection of a plastic material and the claimed manufacturing methods; in other words, Wooster is silent on when the containing can is formed by a plastic molding machine or a blow molding machine, the snap switch is installed into the feeder, and after a moisture-resisting film is installed to the can cover of the feeder, the containing can with the can mouth facing upward is placed on a production line for automatic weighing and filling of the feed, and a capping machine is used to screw the feeder with the moisture-resisting film to the can mouth of the containing can, and send the feeder to an automatic electromagnetic induction sealing machine to seal the moisture-resisting film onto the can mouth of the containing can, so as to achieve a highly efficient automatic filling process.
However, the examiner takes official notice that the modification is merely the selection of a known material for intended use [In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Wooster before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for the known properties of plastic e.g. lightweight, won’t rust. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. In addition, the manufacturing method steps are known and are merely an obvious automated engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation to optimize cost effective and efficient mass production and Freischem teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a moisture-resisting film covered onto the can mouth of the containing can (Freischem Fig. 2 #6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Wooster with the teachings of Freischem before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success to seal off air for proper transport and storage as taught by Freischem (Freischem English translation). The modifications are merely the application of a known techniques to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 1,904,756 to Wooster.
Regarding Claim 10, Wooster is silent on the rectangular shape of the can, frame and pressing part and the snap fit relationship between the cover and the can; in other words, the containing can is a substantially rectangular can with a hook structure disposed on an outer side of the can mouth, the can cover is a substantially rectangular cover with a hook slot structure disposed on an inner side of an opening of the can cover and configured to be corresponsive to the hook structure, and the feeder is coupled to the containing can through the hook slot structure and the hook structure, and the assembly frame part is a rectangular frame configured to be corresponsive to the can cover and having an area smaller than the can cover, the pressing part is substantially rectangular, and when the assembly frame part is assembled to the snap switch, the pressing part is partially or wholly exposed from the top area of the assembly frame part, and the top area of the assembly frame part coupled to an exposed area of the pressing part is smaller than or equal to an exposed area of the can mouth of the containing can. However, the examiner takes official notice that the claimed rectangular shapes and snap fit slot and hook connection is well-known alternate configuration in the art. Applicant in response to the species restriction stated that the rectangular configuration is an obvious variant to the circular configuration and that the hook and slot is also a known obvious variant to threads and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Wooster before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for an efficient use of space or desired aesthetic design. The modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation to optimize design and appeal such as an obvious change in shape [In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 231, 73 USPQ 431, 433 (CCPA 1947)]. Furthermore, the modification is merely the simple substitution of one known shape and cover to can connection with another to obtain predictable results. “Obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 and 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of record is a teaching of the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art with regard to quantitative feed dispensers with snap switches:
U.S. Patent No. 6,315,170; U.S. Patent No. 9,481,491; U.S. Patent No. 6,962,274; U.S. Patent Pub. No.2010/0012683; U.S. Patent No. 6,811,061; U.S. Patent No. 3,181,738; U.S. Patent No. 4,109,835; U.S. Patent No. 5,685,461; U.S. Patent No. 5,421,191; U.S. Patent No. 4,562,941; U.S. Patent No. 4,408,703; German Patent DE 10023971; European Patent EP 1482283; European Patent EP 1544584; China Patent CN 201467817; China Patent CN 106864979; China Patent CN 117461591; Korea Patent KR 200337867; German Patent DE 102017008192.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA M VALENTI whose telephone number is (571)272-6895. The examiner can normally be reached Available Monday and Tuesday only, eastern time.
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.
/ANDREA M VALENTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
24 February 2026