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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Request for Continued Examination filed on February 08, 2026. As multiple sets of documents have been submitted, the Examiner would like to note that the following documents are considered of record and have been examined:
Drawings: filed on February 08, 2026
Claims: filed February 16, 2026 (clean copy)
Claims 16-35 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 08, 2026 and the subsequent supplemental amendment filed on February 16, 2026 have been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 34-35 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the method as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus, such as an apparatus comprising one or more pet-operable actuating devices positioned separately from and adjacent to the one or more bowl bodies.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 34-35 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 25, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
In paragraph [0001], the phrase “which could entail producing two syllables like ‘water’ or ‘food, please’” is considered new matter, as the original disclosure does not describe an audible alert with a spoken message.
In paragraph [0016], amendment of the distance “2 inches” to “a cm” is considered new matter, as having a minimum distance of “a cm” was not presented in the original disclosure.
In paragraph [0016], amendment of the time duration “10 seconds” to “up to 10 seconds” is considered new matter, as having a time duration of less than 10 seconds was not presented in the original disclosure.
The amendment filed February 08, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
In Fig. 2, the addition of element reference 107 (“LED”) is considered new matter, as the specific positioning and connection of the LEDs within the overall circuit was not presented in the original disclosure.
In Fig. 5, the label positioning of element reference 107 (“LED”) is considered new matter. Fig. 5, filed February 08, 2026, depicts the LED as being positioned atop the rim; however, the original disclosure describes the LED as being “under the rim” (para [0017] of Specification filed December 08, 2023).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 26 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 26, line 11, it is suggested to amend the limitation “the bowl body” to –the one or more bowl bodies-- to further clarify the scope of the claims.
In claim 27, line 2, it is suggested to amend the limitation “the bowl body” to –the one or more bowl bodies-- to further clarify the scope of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 19, 25, and 30 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.
Claim 19, line 2, recites the limitation “lever-type actuator”, which contains the indefinite term “type”. The addition of the term “type” to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., lever) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E)). Therefore, it is unclear what the term “lever-type” means and how it applies to the claimed apparatus.
Claim 25, lines 2 and 3, introduce “a first bowl” and “a second bowl”, respectively. However, “a first bowl” and “a second bowl” have been previously introduced in claim 17, upon which claim 25 is dependent. It is thus unclear whether claim 25 requires first and second bowls in addition to those recited in claim 17, or whether claim 25 refers back to the previously introduced first and second bowls of claim 17. The ambiguity of the phrasing further makes it unclear as to how many bowls are required by the claims, and the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 25, lines 4 and 5, each recite “the bowl body”. However, claim 1 previously introduces “one or more bowl bodies”, and claim 25 previously introduces “a first bowl” and “a second bowl”. It is thus unclear whether claim 25 refers to each of the aforementioned “one or more bowl bodies”, to a particular one of the “one or more bowl bodies”, or to bodies of the first and/or second bowls. The ambiguity of the phrasing makes it unclear as to how the claimed actuating devices structurally relate to the one or more bowl bodies, the first bowl, and the second bowl, and the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 30, lines 2-3, recites “different radio-frequency signals”. However, the claims do not previously establish that the radio-frequency transmitter, originally introduced in claim 26, line 8, is capable of producing more than one radio-frequency signal. Thus, the phrase “different radio-frequency signals” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims. It is unclear what function the remote device is configured to perform, and the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
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)(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) 16-18 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chan (US 2023/0049347 A1), hereinafter Chan.
Regarding claim 16, Chan discloses a feeding apparatus (interactive system 100) comprising:
one or more bowl bodies (dispensing device 410) configured to receive food and/or water for a pet (fig. 6, configured to receive food 610 and/or water via receiving chambers 405);
one or more pet-operable actuating devices (actuators 125) disposed on, within, or operatively connected to the one or more bowl bodies (fig. 5) and configured for actuation by a pet (para [0052]-[0053]);
one or more electrically driven sound-generating devices (speakers 135 and speakers 404) disposed on or within the one or more bowl bodies (fig. 5, speakers 135 and 404 are disposed at least indirectly on the dispensing device 410); and
an electrical control circuit (processing unit 115; para [0054], unit 115 comprises a “circuit board system”) operatively coupling the one or more pet-operable actuating devices to the one or more sound-generating devices (fig. 1), the electrical control circuit being configured such that actuation of the one or more pet-operable actuating devices causes generation of an electrical drive signal to the one or more sound- generating devices to produce a sound (audio stimulus 700) at the one or more bowl bodies (para [0055] and [0060]; fig. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 17, Chan discloses the apparatus of claim 16, and further discloses wherein the one or more bowl bodies (dispensing device 410) comprise a double-bowl set including a first bowl (bottom left receiving chamber 405, shown in fig. 6) and a second bowl (bottom right receiving chamber 405, shown in fig. 6).
Regarding claim 18, Chan discloses the apparatus of claim 16, and further discloses wherein the one or more pet-operable actuating devices comprises one or more of: a button, a lever, a pull-cord, or a chain (para [0058], actuators 125 are buttons).
Regarding claim 21, Chan discloses the apparatus of claim 17, and further discloses further comprising a first pet-operable actuating device (leftmost actuator 125, shown in fig. 6) associated with the first bowl (bottom left receiving chamber 405, shown in fig. 6) and a second pet-operable actuating device (second to leftmost actuator 125, shown in fig. 6) associated with the second bowl (bottom right receiving chamber 405, shown in fig. 6).
The Examiner notes that any pet-operable actuating device may be “associated” with any bowl, as no mechanical or electrical components creating a specific “association” are claimed. In other words, “associated with” may be read as an intended use, as an apparatus user may associate pet-operable actuating devices with bowls in any manner desired.
Regarding claim 22, Chan discloses the apparatus of claim 21, and further discloses wherein at least one of the one or more sound-generating devices (speaker 135) is configured to generate a first human-perceptible sound (audio stimulus 700) in response to operation of the first pet-operable actuating device (actuator 125) and a second human- perceptible sound (audio stimulus 700) in response to operation of the second pet-operable actuating device (actuator 125; para [0009], “actuation of each actuator produces a different sound”; para [0060]).
Regarding claim 23, Chan discloses the apparatus of claim 16, and further discloses further comprising one or more visual indicators (“LED elements” within actuators 125, para [0060]) integrated with the one or more bowl bodies (dispensing device 410; fig. 5) and configured to emit a visual alert (stimulus 710) concurrently with or in response to the sound generated by at least one of the one or more sound-generating devices (para [0010] and [0060]).
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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 2023/0049347 A1), hereinafter Chan, in view of Parness (US 9,049,840 B1), hereinafter Parness.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Chan discloses the apparatus of claim 16, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the one or more pet-operable actuating devices comprises a lever-type actuator operatively coupled to at least one of the one or more bowl bodies by a mechanical linkage or by electrical wiring.
However, Parness is in the field of pet feeders (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the one or more pet-operable actuating devices comprises a lever-type actuator (tabs 80) operatively coupled to at least one of the one or more bowl bodies (tray 100) by a mechanical linkage or by electrical wiring (fig. 2, tabs 80 are connected to tray 100 by mechanical linkages).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus comprising pet-operable actuators of Chan to have made the actuators as levers as taught by Parness with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a more engaging way for a pet to interact with the apparatus (fig. 2; col 1, lines 19-27).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 2023/0049347 A1), hereinafter Chan, in view of Stone (US 2014/0090601 A1), hereinafter Stone.
Regarding claim 20, Chan discloses the apparatus of claim 17, and further discloses further comprising a central housing portion (main body 406) disposed between the first bowl and the second bowl (receiving chambers 405; fig. 6, main body 406 lies at least partially between chambers 405), and further comprising a sealed compartment (interior of main body 406; interpreted as “sealed” under plain meaning of the term “fastened or closed securely”) in the central housing portion (fig. 6).
Chan does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the sealed compartment in the central housing houses a power source.
However, Stone is in the field of pet feeders (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the sealed compartment in the central housing (interior of body of feeder 10) houses a power source (power connector socket 42; fig. 4; para [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus comprising central housing portion and sealed compartment of Chan to incorporate the teaching of housing a power source within the sealed compartment as taught by Stone with a reasonable expectation of success to protect electrical components from direct contact with animals and other environmental factors (para [0101]).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 2023/0049347 A1), hereinafter Chan, in view of Trottier et al. (US 2017/0290290 A1), hereinafter Trottier.
Regarding claim 24, Chan discloses the apparatus of claim 16, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the one or more pet-operable actuating devices comprises a waterproofed button or a waterproofed lever.
However, Trottier is in the field of pet feeders (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the one or more pet-operable actuating devices (button 2015) comprises a waterproofed button or a waterproofed lever (para [0298], button 2015 is “water-proof”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus comprising pet-operable actuating devices of Chan to have made the pet-operable actuating devices waterproof as taught by Trottier with a reasonable expectation of success to resist damage from licking, biting, and chewing from a pet using the device (para [0298]).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 2023/0049347 A1), hereinafter Chan, in view of PETNEY (https://www.amazon.ca/PETNEY-Communication-Recordable-Rechargeable-Interactive/dp/B0C232D5JJ), hereinafter PETNEY.
Regarding claim 25, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Chan discloses the apparatus of claim 17, and further discloses a first pet-operable actuating device (leftmost actuator 125, shown in fig. 6) associated with a first bowl for water (bottom left receiving chamber 405, shown in fig. 6, chamber 405 is capable of use with water), and a second pet-operable actuating device (second to leftmost actuator 125, shown in fig. 6) associated with a second bowl for food (bottom right receiving chamber 405, shown in fig. 6, chamber 405 is capable of use with food), each actuating device (actuators 125) protruding from the bowl body (dispensing device 410) and being positioned on a top surface, rim, or side surface of the bowl body (fig. 5).
Chan does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the first pet-operable actuating device is colored blue and has a round shape, and the second pet-operable actuating device is colored yellow and has a rounded-square shape.
However, PETNEY is in the field of pet interaction devices (title) and teaches wherein the first pet-operable actuating device is colored and has a round shape (orange button, shown in image titled “Pet Talking buttons set”), and the second pet-operable actuating device is colored and has a rounded-square shape (blue button, shown in image titled “Pet Talking buttons set”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus comprising pet-operable actuating devices of Chan to have made the pet-operable actuating devices in different shapes with a reasonable expectation of success to allow a pet using the device to more easily distinguish between actuators (see section “Easy to Use”, “5 different colors and shapes make it easier for your pet to recognize commands”). Additionally, no criticality appears to be disclosed in the instant application regarding the shapes of the first and second pet-operable actuating devices as “round” and “rounded-square”, respectively.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first pet-operable actuating device colored blue and the second pet-operable actuating device colored yellow, because Applicant has not disclosed why these particular colors provide an advantage (over other colors perceptible by animals), are used for a particular purpose, or solve a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with pet-operable actuators of other colors, such as black and white, because they both would have the same reconfigurability and operability. Therefore, it would have been an obvious change in aesthetic design to modify the pet-operable actuators to be blue and yellow, respectively, to obtain the invention as claimed. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
Claim(s) 26 and 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 2023/0049347 A1), hereinafter Chan, in view of Haensgen et al. (US 2017/0079257 A1), hereinafter Haensgen.
Regarding claim 26, Chan discloses an apparatus (interactive system 100) comprising:
one or more bowl bodies (dispensing device 410) configured to receive pet food and/or water (fig. 6, configured to receive food 610 and/or water via receiving chambers 405);
one or more pet-operable actuating devices (actuators 125) disposed on, within, or operatively connected to the one or more bowl bodies (fig. 5) and configured for actuation by a pet (para [0052]-[0053]);
one or more sound-generating devices (speakers 135 and speakers 404) configured to generate a human-perceptible output comprising sound (audio stimulus 700) in response to operation of the one or more pet-operable actuating devices (para [0055] and [0060]); and
a radio-frequency transmitter module (processing unit 115; para [0055], communication occurs via “Bluetooth” (i.e., via radio-frequency)) configured to transmit a radio-frequency signal in response to operation (actuating motion 715) of the one or more pet-operable actuating devices, disposed on, within, or operatively connected to at least one of the one or more bowl bodies (para [0055]);
the apparatus further comprising a remote device (remote computer 165) separate from the bowl body (para [0051]) and including a radio-frequency receiver configured to receive the signal (para [0055], communication occurs via “Bluetooth” (i.e., via radio-frequency)).
Chan does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the radio-frequency receiver is configured to generate a remote alert.
However, Haensgen is in the field of remote communication devices (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the radio-frequency receiver (antenna 96) is configured to generate a remote alert (para [0064] and [0200]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus with radio-frequency transmitter module and radio-frequency receiver of Chan to have made the radio-frequency receiver configured to generate a remote alert as taught by Haensgen with a reasonable expectation of success to more effectively notify users of changes to the apparatus status while the user is away from the apparatus (para [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 29, Chan as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 26, and further discloses wherein the radio-frequency transmitter module (from Chan, processing unit 115) is configured to transmit radio-frequency signals corresponding to operation (from Chan, actuating motion 715) of different pet-operable actuating devices (from Chan, actuators 125; para [0055], communication occurs via “Bluetooth” (i.e., via radio-frequency)).
Regarding claim 30, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Chan as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 26, and further discloses wherein the remote device (from Haensgen, controller 22) is configured to generate remote audio alerts (from Haensgen, “user-perceptible indication e.g., alarm” para [0050]) corresponding to different radio-frequency signals (from Haensgen, para [0050] and [0051]).
Regarding claim 31, Chan as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 26, and further discloses wherein the remote device (from Haensgen, controller 22) further comprises a visual indicator (from Haensgen, visually-perceptible indicator 49a) configured to emit a visual alert in response to the remote alert (from Haensgen, para [0060]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 32, Chan as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 26, and further discloses wherein the remote device (from Haensgen, controller 22) comprises a speaker (from Haensgen, speaker/buzzer 76, para [0058]) configured to provide a tactile alert comprising vibration (from Haensgen, “vibrating alarm”, para [0059]) and is configured as a portable key-ring unit (from Haensgen, fig. 2-3, controller 22 is capable of being fitted onto and carried on a key-ring and is thus broadly interpreted as a “key-ring unit”).
Claim(s) 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chan (US 2023/0049347 A1), hereinafter Chan, in view of Haensgen et al. (US 2017/0079257 A1), hereinafter Haensgen, as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Stone (US 2014/0090601 A1), hereinafter Stone.
Regarding claim 27, Chan as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 26, and further discloses further comprising a power source (power source 150).
Chan as modified does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the power source is housed within a compartment of the bowl body.
However, Stone is in the field of pet feeders (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the power source (power connector socket 42) is housed within a compartment (interior of body of feeder 10, covered at least partially by flap 28) of the bowl body (body of feeder 10; fig. 4; para [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus comprising bowl body and power source of Chan as modified to incorporate the teaching of housing a power source within a sealed compartment of the bowl body as taught by Stone with a reasonable expectation of success to protect electrical components from direct contact with animals and other environmental factors (para [0101]).
Regarding claim 28, Chan as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 27, and further discloses wherein the compartment (from Stone, interior of body of feeder 10) is sealed (from Stone, fig. 4; broadly interpreted as “sealed” under plain meaning of the term “fastened or closed securely”).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chan (US 2023/0049347 A1), hereinafter Chan, in view of Haensgen et al. (US 2017/0079257 A1), hereinafter Haensgen, as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (US 2016/0192620 A1), hereinafter Hu.
Regarding claim 33, Chan as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 26, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the radio-frequency transmitter module and the radio-frequency receiver are configured to operate at 433 MHz.
However, Hu is in the field of pet feeders (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the radio-frequency transmitter module (module 227) and the radio-frequency receiver (processor 224) are configured to operate at 433 MHz (para [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus with radio-frequency transmitter module and radio-frequency receiver of Chan as modified to have made the transmitter module and receiver configured to operate at 433 MHz as taught by Hu with a reasonable expectation of success to provide direct communication between components in a system utilizing mechanisms well understood in the art (para [0069]). Additionally, no criticality appears to be disclosed in the instant application regarding a specific frequency of 433 MHz.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 08, 2026 and February 12, 2026, regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1-15 under §103 have been fully considered, but arguments pertaining to Jensen et al. (US 10,091,972 B1), Polk (US 2016/0366857 A1), Uffner (US 2010/0107984 A1), Cozzi (US 4,414,921 A) are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the aforementioned references for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 08, 2026 and February 12, 2026, regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1-15 under §103 pertaining to Haensgen et al. (US 2017/0079257 A1) and Trottier et al. (US 2017/0290290 A1) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (Remarks, filed February 08, 2026, pages 4-5 of 25), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant’s arguments pertaining to Haensgen and Trottier do not take into consideration that Haensgen and Trottier are used as secondary references to modify a separate primary reference.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references (Remarks, filed February 08, 2026, pages 6-8 of 25), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (Remarks, filed February 08, 2026, pages 6-8 of 25), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that Trottier is nonanalogous art (Remarks, filed February 08, 2026, page 6-8 of 25), 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, Trottier is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor (i.e., pet feeders).
Regarding Applicant’s summary of the interview conducted January 07, 2026, the Examiner's account of the interview has been previously submitted and provides a complete account of topics discussed. No further discussion is deemed necessary with regard to the interview.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 16.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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, Kimberly Berona, can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647