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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 10 contains limitations that the height “wherein a lesser of the first and second heights determines a height of a fluid level of the fluid withing the watering dish.” However, there is no support in the drawings or the specification for the first and second channel to have different heights. The specification on page 3 lines 15-18 and page 7 lines 5-9 state the channels/notches are equal in height.
Claims 11-22 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 20, 21, 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 20, 21, and 22 depend from cancelled claim 1. This appears to be a typographical error. Applicant probably intended to have them depend from new independent claim 10.
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) 10-19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 11,291,183 to Mayer.
Regarding Claim 10, Mayer teaches a watering dish assembly for providing a shallow water depth, comprising: a watering dish (Mayer Fig. 3 #106); a fluid container (Mayer Fig. 3 #108) including an inner volume adapted to contain a fluid, and a fluid output port; a cap valve assembly (Mayer Fig. 3 #212) including an outer ring including an outer ring upper portion releasably attached to the fluid output port, and an inner ring nested within the outer ring and defining a fluid output path within the inner ring extending from within the inner volume to an area outside the inner volume (Mayer Fig. 16 and 17), the inner ring including an inner ring upper portion configured with a valve (Mayer Fig. 2 #214), the valve movable relative to the inner ring upper portion from a sealed position that closes the fluid output path to an open position that opens the fluid output path (Mayer Fig. 18 and 19); a partition entirely sealing a gap between an outer surface of the inner ring and an inner surface of the outer ring (Mayer Fig. 16 and 17 horizontal partition surrounding valve #124, partition is not numbered and divides the cap into an upper and lower portion); a first channel (Mayer Fig. 16 #1606 left side) with a first height in a lower portion of the outer ring and a second channel (Mayer Fig. 16 #1606 right side) with a second height in a lower portion of the inner ring, the first channel and the second channel in fluid communication with one another and with the fluid output path; wherein the valve is moved to the open position when the cap valve is configured with the watering dish thereby causing the fluid to move from the fluid container into the watering dish via the fluid output path (Mayer Fig. 20); wherein a lesser of the first and second heights determines a height of a fluid level of the fluid within the watering dish (Mayer Fig. 16 #1606 left and right side).
Regarding Claim 11, Mayer teaches an activation member (Mayer Fig. 20 #2002) within the watering dish (Mayer Fig. 1 #104/106); wherein when the cap valve is configured with the watering dish, the activation member (Mayer Fig. 20 #2002) moves the valve to the open position.
Regarding Claim 12, Mayer teaches watering dish includes a first portion (Mayer Fig. 20 right side of #104) adapted to receive fluid from the fluid container and including the activation member, and a second portion (Mayer Fig.20 left side of #104, includes #106) adapted to drink from.
Regarding Claim 13, Mayer teaches a fluid channel (Mayer Fig. 1 #114) extending between the first portion of the watering dish to the second portion of the watering dish.
Regarding Claim 14, Mayer teaches the outer ring and the inner ring are in a concentric arrangement with one another (Mayer Fig. 16 and 17).
Regarding Claim 15, Mayer teaches the valve includes a valve shaft (Mayer Fig. 2 #214 fits inner ring of #212) within the inner ring, the valve shaft including a shaft proximal end configured at the inner ring upper portion and a shaft distal far end configured at an inner ring lower portion opposite the inner ring upper portion, the shaft distal far end including a shaft distal far end outer diameter and the inner ring lower portion including an inner ring lower inner diameter that is greater than the shaft distal far end outer diameter (Mayer Fig. 16 #214 is smaller than diameter of surrounding wall not numbered in the figure).
Regarding Claim 16, Mayer teaches the inner ring lower inner diameter being greater than the shaft distal far end outer diameter forms a circumferential gap between an outer circumferential surface of the shaft distal far end and an inner circumferential surface of the inner ring (Mayer Fig. 19 gap from #214 to inner ring wall).
Regarding Claim 17, Mayer teaches the circumferential gap is a 360° circumferential gap (Mayer Fig. 19 the gap around #214 is 360 degrees).
Regarding Claim 18, Mayer teaches the fluid output path includes the circumferential gap (Mayer Fig. 19).
Regarding Claim 19, Mayer teaches the shaft distal far end includes a shaft button (Mayer Fig. 2 bottom of #214) that includes the shaft distal far end outer diameter.
Regarding Claim 21, Mayer teaches first channel and/or the second channel include a shape selected from the group consisting of rectangular, round, oval, triangular, pent-roofed and irregular (Mayer Fig. 16 #1606, rectangular).
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) 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,291,183 to Mayer.
Regarding Claim 22, Mayer is silent on explicitly teaching the the first channel and/or the second channel include a shape selected from the group consisting of round, oval, triangular, pent-roofed and irregular. Applicant does not provide criticality in the specification the claimed shapes. Applicant teaches in the specification that rectangular is a known alternate equivalent to the claimed shapes (Applicant specification page 7 lines 12-14). Examiner takes official notice that round water channel outlets are old and notoriously well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Mayer before the effective filing date of the claimed in invention with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce frictional resistance and/or ease of manufacturing. The modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation to optimize flow conditions and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known shape for another to obtain predictable results. An engineering design choice involving an obvious change in aesthetic design [In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 231, 73 USPQ 431, 433 (CCPA 1947)].
Regarding Claim 20, Mayer is silent on the first channel and the second channel are radially offset from one another. However, applicant does not provide criticality for this in the specification nor does applicant quantify the extent of the offset thus it could merely be a manufacturing inaccuracy. Mayer teaches radially opposing first and second channels (Mayer Fig. 16 #1606), but is silent on radially offset. The modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation. The modification is merely a shift in location of a known element performing the same intended function [In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 1023, 86 USPQ 70, 73 (CCPA 1950)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Mayer before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to direct the flow path. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner maintains that applicant hasn’t patentably distinguished over the prior art of record.
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 pet watering device with a water dish, fluid container, cap valve with a first and second channel, China Patent CN 107691264 to Lei.
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
20 October 2025