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 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, 2, 4 and 6-12 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 1 recites the limitation "approximately perpendicular”. It is unclear what angles would be approximately perpendicular or how a feature must be shaped or directed to be approximately perpendicular. Even if the specification uses the same term of degree as in the claim, a rejection is proper if the scope of the term is not understood when read in light of the specification. IN this case the scope of what approximately perpendicular means would not be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art when read in light of the specification
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the top" in line 2. It is unclear what top this is referring to.
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) 1, 2, 4, 6-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redmayne (US-4202574-A) in view of Craft et al. (US-20070175898-A1).
Redmayne discloses a system for a lid (Fig. 1), said system comprising: a container (10) with an upstream top and an opposing downstream top (Fig. 1, at 16); a lid (18) which couples with said container, wherein said lid comprises an upstream side and an opposing downstream side; wherein said downstream side comprises an inwardly extending lip (26), and wherein said upstream side comprises an inwardly extending lip (40); wherein said downstream side comprises a moveable bolt (28) which engages with said inwardly extending lip on said downstream side (Fig. 2); wherein said upstream top comprises a shelf (16) which engages with said inwardly extending lip on said upstream side (Fig. 10), wherein said container can be an animal feeder (intended use), wherein said bolt is coupled to a spring (34) to urge the bolt in a downstream position, wherein a user can open said lid by applying an upstream and upward force (col. 2, lines 39-67), and wherein said bolt comprises an exposed portion which extends downstream of said downstream side (Fig. 2), wherein the lid has a top connecting sides (Fig. 1), and wherein said inwardly extending lip on said downstream side extends approximately perpendicular to said downstream side, and wherein said inwardly extending lip extends approximately perpendicular to said upstream side (the lips extend downwardly so this is approximately perpendicular) .
Redmayne fails to teach the specific dimensions of the components and a square or rectangular shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufactured the system with the claimed sizes, in order to adjust for different environments and since such a modification would have been a change in size of an existing component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Craft teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a container and lid with a square or rectangular shape (par. 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have manufactured the system with different shapes, in order to adjust for different environments and since such a modification would have been a change in shape of an existing component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redmayne and Craft in view of Wang (US-20050006390-A1).
Redmayne fails to teach two or more spaced shelves.
Wang teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a container spaced shelves (13) for latching on to (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the system with a plurality of shelves, in order to provide a user with a distinct latching area to secure the lid to the container.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, 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 this case, the ,motivation to combine applied above is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Claims of relative movement and directions require reference points, and the current claims are broad enough in scope that the structure of the prior art of record reads on the positions and locations as currently claimed. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571)270-5055. 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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733