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 § 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2019/0021285) in view of CN 109011622 (CN’622).
For claims 1 and 16, Chen teaches a pet toy comprising:
a base (121) having a rounded bottom surface;
a stem (21) extending from the base;
a limb (221) diverging from the stem; and
a hanging toy (22) coupled to the limb.
Chen discloses most of the claimed invention except for mentioning wherein the rounded bottom surface includes a plurality of convex protrusions such that the rounded bottom surface is a continuous, uneven surface forming an irregular surface pattern configured to contact a surface supporting the base.
CN’622 teaches that it is old and well known in the art to provide a pet toy having the rounded bottom surface includes a plurality of convex protrusions (501) such that the rounded bottom surface is a continuous, uneven surface forming an irregular surface pattern configured to contact a surface supporting the base (see Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bottom surface of Chen so as to include a rounded bottom surface includes a plurality of convex protrusions such that the rounded bottom surface is a continuous, uneven surface forming an irregular surface pattern configured to contact a surface supporting the base, in a similar manner as taught in CN’622, so as to allow the toy to wobble and provide entertainment for the pet.
For claim 6, Chen as modified by CN’622 (emphasis on Chen) further teach wherein the base (121) is a bowl including an inner surface defining a cavity.
For claim 9, Chen as modified by CN’622 (emphasis on Chen) further teach the bowl (121) includes a panel (11,12) disposed above the cavity; the stem (21) is coupled to and extends from the panel; and the panel includes an aperture (122) configured to receive the loose toy.
For claim 10, Chen as modified by CN’622 (emphasis on Chen) further teach wherein the bowl includes a weight (30) disposed at a bottom/center of the cavity.
For claim 11, Chen as modified by CN’622 (emphasis on CN’622) further teach wherein the plurality of convex protrusions (501) cause the pet toy to wobble back and forth along a non-linear and unpredictable pathway in response to a force applied to the pet toy.
For claim 18, Chen as modified by Wilhelm (emphasis on Chen) further teach wherein the bowl includes a panel (11,12) disposed above the cavity including at least one aperture (122) configured to receive the loose toy, the stem (21) coupled to and extending from the panel.
Claims 2-5, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Renforth et al. (US 2006/0054105).
For claims 2 and 19, as described above, the references as applied to claim 1 above disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning wherein the hanging toy includes: a body; and a cord extending from the body and coupled the limb.
Renforth et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art to provide the hanging toy includes: a body (106); and a cord (108) extending from the body and coupled the limb (104).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pet toy assembly of the references as applied to claim 1 above so as to include the hanging toy includes: a body; and a cord extending from the body and coupled the limb, in a similar manner as taught in Renforth et al., so as to keep pets entertained and/or distracted when left alone.
For claims 3 and 19, the references as applied to claim 1 above as modified by Renforth et al. (emphasis on Renforth et al) further teach wherein the body (106) includes: a cover;
a compartment within the cover; and a filler material disposed within the compartment (see [0027]-[0029]).
For claim 4, the references as applied to claim 1 above as modified by Renforth et al. (emphasis on Renforth et al) further teach wherein the filler material includes catnip (see [0027]-[0029]).
For claim 5, the references as applied to claim 1 above as modified by Renforth et al. (emphasis on Renforth et al) further teach wherein the cord is comprised of an elastic material (see [0027]-[0029]).
Claims 7, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bentz (US 2019/0239481).
For claims 7, 8 and 17, as described above, the references as applied to claim 1 above disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning a loose toy disposed within the cavity of the bowl, and wherein the loose toy includes a noisemaker.
Bentz teaches that it is old and well known in the art to provide a loose toy (40,140,160,170,180) disposed within the cavity of the bowl (10,30), and wherein the loose toy includes a noisemaker (see [0020],[0021]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pet toy assembly of the references as applied to claim 1 above so as to include a loose toy disposed within the cavity of the bowl and wherein the loose toy includes a noisemaker, in a similar manner as taught in Bentz, so as to keep pets entertained and/or distracted when left alone.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schatz (US 3921331).
For claim 21, as described above, the references as applied to claim 1 above disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning a hub extending from a center of the rounded bottom surface, wherein when the pet toy is in an equilibrium position, the pet toy is supported by the hub and two or more of the plurality of convex protrusions so as to be disposed at an angle with respect to a vertical axis.
Schatz teaches that it is old and well known in the art to provide a toy having a hub (18) extending from a center of the rounded bottom surface so as to provide an equilibrium position for the toy.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pet toy assembly of the references as applied to claim 1 above so as to include a hub extending from a center of the rounded bottom surface, in a similar manner as taught in Schatz, so as to provide an equilibrium position for the toy.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm (US 2019/0021282) view of CN 109011622 (CN’622).
For claim 12, Wilhelm teaches a pet toy comprising:
a base having a continuous rounded bottom surface (12,32,30);
a stem (14) extending from the base;
a plurality of branches (16, 18, 20) diverging from the stem; and
a plurality of hanging toys (60), one of the plurality of hanging toys being coupled to a respective one of the plurality of branches, wherein the rounded bottom surface (12,30,32; which is equivalent to Applicant’s rounded bottom surface (211)).
Wilhelm discloses most of the claimed invention except for mentioning wherein the rounded bottom surface includes a plurality of convex protrusions such that the rounded bottom surface is a continuous, uneven surface forming an irregular surface pattern configured to contact a surface supporting the base.
CN’622 teaches that it is old and well known in the art to provide a pet toy having the rounded bottom surface includes a plurality of convex protrusions (501) such that the rounded bottom surface is a continuous, uneven surface forming an irregular surface pattern configured to contact a surface supporting the base (see Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bottom surface of Wilhelm so as to include a rounded bottom surface includes a plurality of convex protrusions such that the rounded bottom surface is a continuous, uneven surface forming an irregular surface pattern configured to contact a surface supporting the base, in a similar manner as taught in CN’622, so as to allow the toy to wobble and provide entertainment for the pet.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Renforth et al. (US 2006/0054105).
For claims 13 and 14, as described above, the references as applied to claim 12 above disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning wherein each hanging toy of the plurality of hanging toys includes: a body including a compartment; a filler material such as cat nip disposed within the compartment; and a cord extending between the body and one of the plurality of branches.
Renforth et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art to provide
a plurality of hanging toys includes: a body (106) including a compartment; a filler material such as cat nip (see [0027]) disposed within the compartment; and a cord (108) extending between the body and one of the plurality of branches (104).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pet toy assembly of the references as applied to claim 12 above so as to include a plurality of hanging toys includes a body, a filler material, and a cord, in a similar manner as taught in Renforth et al., so as to keep pets entertained and/or distracted when left alone.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Bentz (US 2019/0239481).
For claim 15, as described above, the references as applied to claim 12 above disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning a loose toy disposed within the cavity of the bowl, and wherein the loose toy includes a noisemaker.
Bentz teaches that it is old and well known in the art to provide a loose toy (40,140,160,170,180) disposed within the cavity of the bowl (10,30), and wherein the loose toy includes a noisemaker (see [0020],[0021]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pet toy assembly of the references as applied to claim 12 above so as to include a loose toy disposed within the cavity of the bowl and wherein the loose toy includes a noisemaker, in a similar manner as taught in Bentz, so as to keep pets entertained and/or distracted when left alone.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
Note, although the examiner recites certain excerpts for the prior art, MPEP 2141.02 VI states “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRINH T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRINH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
