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 .
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16 are currently pending, with claims 2-3 and 11-12 withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-10, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalec (US 20230032509 A1), here after referred to as “Michalec”, in view of Farmer (US 7306175 B1), hereafter referred to as “Farmer”.
Regarding claim 1, Michalec teaches a feeding device for dispensing feed for animal consumption (figs. 1-8 and abstract), the feeding device comprising:
a hopper (202) for storing the feed (fig. 2B; paragraph [0045]);
a feed trough (208) operably positioned below the hopper for receiving the feed (fig. 2B);
a plurality of legs (206) configured to support the feeding device (fig. 2B);
a conversion box assembly (spinner plate housing as described in paragraph [0054], 102, and 210; figs. 2B and 3) connected to the hopper (fig. 2B), the conversion box assembly having one or more flaps (210; fig. 2B) configured to transition between a raised configuration and a lowered configuration (fig. 2B);
a motor (204, 302; paragraphs [0045] and [0063]); and
one or more feed outlet openings connected to the conversion box assembly (fig. 3 showing openings through which 308 moves through);
wherein said one or more flaps each comprise a horizontal portion and a vertical portion (fig. 2B); and
Michalec further teaches the conversion box in which when the one or more flaps are in the lowered position (200D; fig. 2B), the feed is directed into the feed trough (fig. 2B), and when the plurality of flaps are in the raised position (200C; fig. 2B), the feed is broadcast in an area around the feeding device (fig. 2B), and also teaches coupling mechanisms to attach the flaps (210) to the hopper (202; paragraphs [0054]-[0055], [0058], and [0060]) but does not explicitly teach that the flaps are fixed, and that when the one or more flaps are in the lowered position, the feed is broadcast in an area around the feeding device, and wherein when the plurality of flaps are in the raised position, the feed is directed into the feed trough, and does not discuss how the flaps are kept in place in the raised and lowered configurations, and thus does not explicitly teach wherein said horizontal portion comprises a horizontal mount hole, and wherein said vertical portion comprises a vertical mount hole, and wherein said one or more fixed flaps are in said lowered position when said vertical mount hole is coupled to a flap coupler to fix said one or more fixed flaps in said lowered position.
It is well settled, however, that substituting one equivalent component for another is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular component was significant. MPEP at 2144.06, citing Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980); see also a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another would obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143, citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007). In this case, both a fixed flap with mounting holes and a hinged flap can be transitioned between a raised and lowered configuration to both broadcast feed and direct feed to a trough. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the hinged flap of Michalec with a fixed flap, in order to provide additional adjustability of the position of the flaps on the feeding device, reduce unintended movement of the flaps (e.g., due to vibration of the motor or impact of the feed on the flaps), and since it is well known in the art that mounting holes are a well-known alternative to hinged mounts for controlling an element’s position.
In addition, it is well settled, however, that where the only difference between the prior art and claimed invention is a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from the prior art unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 citing In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167, and also that substituting one equivalent component for another is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular component was significant. MPEP at 2144.06, citing Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980); see also a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another would obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143, citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feeding device of Michalec to reverse the configurations by adjusting the positioning of the one or more flaps, such that in the lowered position, the feed is broadcast in an area around the feeding device, and in the raised position, the feed is directed into the feed trough, in order to accommodate the clearance of the feeder based on the shape and position of various parts of the device, like the spinner, hopper, and trough.
Farmer teaches a feeding device (figs. 3-6) with attachment means including a horizontal portion (54) comprises a horizontal mount hole (53), a vertical portion (69) comprises a vertical mount hole (65), and a flap coupler void (void within element 31’ that receives bolts depicted by dotted lines in fig. 3; see also fig. 4 and col. 5, lines 24-30) which aligns with a horizontal mount hole (53; figs. 4 and 3).
Michalec teaches retrofitting existing feeder devices to include the flaps by drilling holes on various components, as required based on the shape, size, and design of the feeder, to attach the flaps (paragraph [0060]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feeding device of Michalec, such that the horizontal portion comprises a horizontal mount hole and the vertical portion comprises a vertical mount hole to couple to hopper, and said vertical mount hole coupled to a flap coupler, as taught by Farmer, in order to mitigate any vibration experience by the flap by the motor.
The combined teachings of Michalec and Farmer would result in wherein said vertical portion comprises a vertical mount hole, and wherein said one or more fixed flaps are in said lowered position when said vertical mount hole is coupled to a flap coupler to fix said one or more fixed flaps in said lowered position.
Regarding claim 4, Michalec in view of Farmer teaches the feeding device of claim 1, and Michalec further teaches that the feeding device further comprises:
one or more distribution blades (306; fig. 3 and paragraph [0063]) configured to move feed through the feeding device and disperse the feed (fig. 3 and paragraph [0063]), but does not explicitly teach that the blades are removeable.
It is well settled, however, that forming in two pieces a component that had formerly been in one piece involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04, citing In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the blades removable, in order to improve maintenance and cleaning of the blades and motor assembly.
Regarding claim 5, Michalec in view of Farmer reaches the feeding device of claim 1, and Michalec further teaches wherein the feed trough (208) extends the circumference of the feeding device (208 extends beyond the outer circumference element 200; see figs. 2A-2B).
Regarding claim 8, Michalec in view of Farmer teaches the feeding device of claim 1, and Michalec further teaches that one of said one or more flaps comprises a horizontal portion (fig. 2B showing a portion of 210 extending horizontally) and a vertical portion (fig. 2B showing a portion of 210 extending vertically) which are approximately perpendicular (fig. 2B), and wherein said horizontal portion and vertical portion are integrally made from a single piece (fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 9, Michalec teaches a feeding device for dispensing feed for animal consumption (figs. 1-8 and abstract), the feeding device comprising:
a hopper (202) for storing the feed (fig. 2B; paragraph [0045]);
a feed trough (208) operably positioned below the hopper for receiving the feed (fig. 2B),
a plurality of legs (206) configured to support the feeding device (fig. 2B); and
one or more feed outlet openings (multiple openings as shown in fig. 3) located below said hopper (region shown in fig. 3 is below element 202; see also fig. 2B);
wherein one or more flaps each comprise a horizontal portion (fig. 2B) and a vertical portion (fig. 2B); and
a motor (204, 302; paragraphs [0045] and [0063]); and
the one or more feed outlet openings (multiple openings as shown in fig. 3) connected to a conversion box assembly (spinner plate housing as described in paragraph [0054], 102, and 210; figs. 2B and 3).
Michalec further teaches wherein the one or more flaps are in the lowered position (200D; fig. 2B) when said vertical portion covers one of said feed outlet openings (fig. 2B), and wherein the one or more flaps are in the raised position (200C; fig. 2B) when said vertical portion does not cover one of said feed outlet openings (fig. 2B), but does not explicitly teach that wherein the one or more flaps are in the lowered position when said vertical portion does not cover one of said feed outlet openings, and wherein the one or more flaps are in the raised position when said vertical portion covers one of said feed outlet openings. Additionally, Michalec also teaches coupling mechanisms to attach the flaps (210) to the hopper (202; paragraphs [0054]-[0055], [0058], and [0060]), but does not discuss how the flaps are kept in place in the raised and lowered configurations, and thus does not explicitly teach wherein said horizontal portion comprises a horizontal mount hole, and wherein said vertical portion comprises a vertical mount hole.
It is well settled, however, that where the only difference between the prior art and claimed invention is a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only
routine skill in the art, the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from the prior art unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 citing In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167, and also that substituting one equivalent component for another is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular component was significant. MPEP at 2144.06, citing Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980); see also a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another would obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143, citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feeding device of Michalec to reverse the configurations by adjusting the positioning of the one or more flaps, such that when the one or more flaps are in the lowered position, the vertical portion does not cover one of said feed outlet openings, and when the one or more flaps are in the raised position, said vertical portion covers one of said feed outlet openings, in order to accommodate the clearance of the feeder based on the shape and position of various parts of the device, like the spinner, hopper, and trough.
Farmer teaches a feeding device (figs. 4-6) with attachment means including a horizontal portion (54) comprises a horizontal mount hole (53), and a vertical portion (69) comprises a vertical mount hole (65).
Michalec teaches retrofitting existing feeder devices to include the flaps by drilling holes on various components, as required based on the shape, size, and design of the feeder, to attach the flaps (paragraph [0060]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feeding device of Michalec, such that the horizontal portion comprises a horizontal mount hole and the vertical portion comprises a vertical mount hole to couple to hopper, as taught by Farmer, in order to mitigate any vibration experience by the flap by the motor.
Regarding claim 10, Michalec in view of Farmer teaches the feeding device of claim 9, and Michalec further teaches that the motor (204, 304) is housed in the conversion box assembly (102; see figs. 2B and 3 and paragraphs [0063] and [0054]).
Regarding claim 13, Michalec in view of Farmer teaches the feeding device of claim 9, and Michalec further teaches the feeding device further comprising:
one or more distribution blades (306; fig. 3 and paragraph [0063]) configured to move feed through the feeding device and disperse the feed (fig. 3 and paragraph [0063]), but does not explicitly teach that the blades are removeable.
It is well settled, however, that forming in two pieces a component that had formerly been in one piece involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04, citing In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the blades removable, in order to improve maintenance and cleaning of the blades and motor assembly.
Regarding claim 14, Michalec in view of Farmer teaches the feeding device of claim 13, and Michalec further teaches that the one or more removable distribution blades (306) are connected to the motor (204, 302; paragraph [0063] and fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Michalec in view of Farmer teaches the feeding device of claim 9, and further teaches that the flap (210) can be coupled to a surface of the hopper (202; paragraph [0054]), but does not explicitly teach the coupling means used to attach the flap to the hopper, and thus does not explicitly teach that said hopper comprises a flap coupler void which aligns with said horizontal mount hole.
Farmer further teaches a feeding device (figs. 3-6) with attachment means including a flap coupler void (void within element 31’ that receives bolts depicted by dotted lines in fig. 3; see also fig. 4 and col. 5, lines 24-30) which aligns with a horizontal mount hole (53; figs. 4 and 3).
Michalec teaches retrofitting existing feeder devices to include the flaps by drilling holes on various components, as required based on the shape, size, and design of the feeder, to attach the flaps (paragraph [0060]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feeding device of Michalec in view of Famer, such that said hopper comprises a flap coupler void which aligns with said horizontal mount hole, as further taught by Farmer, in order to mitigate any vibration experience by the flap by the motor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or 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.
Applicant argues, on page 3 of the Remarks, that Michalec teaches the use of hinged flaps, and further “teaches away” from fixed flaps “which require changing parts for the conversion”, also citing paragraphs [0019] and [0056] of Michalec.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Michalec at paragraphs [0019] and [0056] highlights that the invention is directed to providing a single feeding device that can both broadcast feed outward and direct feed into a trough, based on the situational need of the user. Michalec references U.S. Patent. No. 9,700,014, which teaches a feeder that solely broadcasts feed and U.S. Patent. No. 9,301,495, which teaches a feeder that solely provides feed to a trough, stating that his invention provides both capabilities in a single device via adjustable flaps, much like the instant invention. Applicant states that fixed flaps instead “require changing parts for the conversion”. Both the hinged flaps of Michalec and the instant fixed flaps require the user to adjust the flaps from a lowered configuration to a raised configuration by changing the position of the existing flap, and both also provide the same function, which allows the feeding device to transition between broadcasting and funneling feed to a trough. Michalec does not teach away from a fixed flap arrangement, and merely teaches an alternative flap mounting mechanism with its benefits, and does not state that a “fixed” flap mechanism with mounting holes is incompatible or inferior in any way.
As shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, it is well settled that substituting one equivalent component for another is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular component was significant. MPEP at 2144.06, citing Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980); see also a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another would obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143, citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007). In this case, both a fixed flap with mounting holes and a hinged flap can be transitioned between a raised and lowered configuration to both broadcast feed and direct feed to a trough. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the hinged flap of Michalec with a fixed flap, in order to provide additional adjustability of the position of the flaps on the feeding device, reduce unintended movement of the flaps (e.g., due to vibration of the motor or impact of the feed on the flaps), and since it is well known in the art that mounting holes are a well-known alternative to hinged mounts for controlling an element’s position.
Applicant, on pages 3-4 of the Remarks, states that claim 9 has been amended to recite that the flaps are fixed. However, this is not true. Claim 9 has been amended to include the limitations of claim 15 as previously recited. Michalec in view of Farmer teaches each and every limitation of independent claim 9.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. The references have many of the elements in the applicant’s disclosure and claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Byun whose telephone number is (571) 272-3212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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. Agendas may be sent to HaeRie.Byun@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached on (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.
/H.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/MARISA V CONLON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643