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 § 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.
Claims 1,3-4, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hansen (US 20140305381 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Hansen discloses a multilevel pet puzzle (Fig. 1), the pet puzzle comprising: a first level (“1”, Fig. 1) including a first puzzle of a first puzzle type, a portion of the first puzzle rotatable about a substantially horizontal axis from a starting position to a solved position to provide access to a first treat compartment (Fig. 2); and a second level (“2”) movable including a second puzzle of a second puzzle type, a portion of the second puzzle movable from a starting position to a solved position to provide access to a second treat compartment (Fig. 3, treat compartments 90), wherein when the portion of the first puzzle is in the starting position, the portion of the first puzzle prevents the portion of the second puzzle from being moved to the solved position (Figs. 1-3, para 17 describes tabs 60 which result in puzzles being solved numerically).
Regarding claim 3: Hansen discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses a third level including a third puzzle (“3”) of a third puzzle type, a portion of the third puzzle movable to provide access to a third treat compartment (Fig. 4, para 17 discusses blocks being solved).
Regarding claim 4: Hansen discloses the limitations of claim 3 as shown above, and further discloses wherein: the portion of the third puzzle is movable from a starting position to a solved position; and when the portion of the second puzzle is in the starting position, the portion of the second puzzle prevents the portion of the third puzzle from being moved to the solved position (Figs. 1-3, tabs 60 result in the puzzles needing to be solved numerically, para 17).
Regarding claim 11: Hansen discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the first level is disposed above the second level (Fig. 1).
Claims 17,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Citak (US 20200187456 A1).
Regarding claim 17: Citak discloses a multilevel pet puzzle (Fig. 1), the pet puzzle comprising: a housing (100); an upper level including an upper level treat compartment (area between 1 and 2 could be used as treat compartment) and a sliding door (1,1’) slidably coupled to the housing, the sliding door slidable between a starting position in which the upper level treat compartment is concealed and a solved position in which the upper level treat compartment is accessible (Figs. 2-3); and a lower level including a drawer (3) having a drawer treat compartment (90), the drawer slidably coupled to the housing such that the drawer is slidable between a starting position in which the drawer treat compartment is concealed (Fig. 5) and a solved position in which the drawer treat compartment is accessible (Fig. 6), wherein when the sliding door (1,1’) is in the starting position, the sliding door prevents the drawer (3) from being moved to the solved position (via locking pins 7).
Regarding claim 19: Citak discloses the limitations of claim 17 as shown above, and further discloses wherein: the sliding door (1,1’) is slidable in a first direction from the starting position to the solved position; the drawer (3) is slidable in a second direction from the starting position to the solved position; and the first direction and the second direction are perpendicular (See Figs. 3 and 6 to see perpendicular directions).
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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 6: Hansen discloses the limitations of claim 3 as shown above.
Hansen discloses the claimed invention except for a fourth level including a fourth puzzle of a fourth puzzle type, a portion of the fourth puzzle movable to provide access to a fourth treat compartment It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the step blocks since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Providing an additional and fourth step block would achieve the predictable result of having the puzzle take a longer time to solve, allowing for an owner to distribute the feed in an effort to ease digestion.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citak as applied to claim 17 above.
Regarding claim 20: Citak discloses the limitations of claim 17 as shown above, and further discloses wherein: the upper level includes a plurality of upper level treat compartments (multiple areas between 1 and 2 can act as treat compartments, such as recesses 20) and a plurality of sliding doors (1,1’) slidably coupled to the housing, each of the plurality of sliding doors slidable between a starting position in which a corresponding upper level treat compartment is concealed and a solved position in which the corresponding upper level treat compartment is accessible (Figs. 2-3).
Citak discloses the claimed invention except for the lower level includes a plurality of drawers each including a drawer treat compartment slidably coupled to the housing, each drawer of the plurality of drawers slidable between a starting position in which a respective drawer treat compartment included in each drawer is concealed and a solved position in which the respective drawer treat compartment included in each drawer is accessible. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the amount of drawers and treat compartments , since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70. Providing additional drawers can increase the duration it takes for the animal to completely solve the puzzle by increasing the difficulty, increasing amusement time and keeping the animal occupied for a longer period of time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12, 14-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record fails to teach the amended limitations of “a second level disposed below the first level, the second level including a second level treat compartment and a sliding door, the sliding door slidably coupled to the housing such that the sliding door is slidable between a starting position in which the second level treat compartment is concealed and a solved position in which the second level treat compartment is accessible, wherein when the treat wheel is in the starting position, the treat wheel prevents the sliding door from being moved to the solved position.” Furthermore, the best prior art of Hansen could not be reasonably combined with other art to introduce the subject matter of a sliding door, in which the first puzzle prevents the sliding door from movement, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to claims 12-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 12, 14-15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26 regarding claims 1, 17, and dependent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Hansen does not teach rotational movement about an axis. The Office respectfully disagrees, as Hansen’s Figure 2 shows an animal pivoting/rotating a step block about the horizontal axis. As currently written, the claims contain broadly written limitations which results in the prior art disclosing the claims. Applicant may find it beneficial to include more structural language to differentiate the rotation.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Citak does not disclose the limitations of claim 17, as Citak’s covering panels (1,1’) do not prevent the sliding panel (3) from being removed, but instead locking pin (7). The Office respectfully disagrees, because there are additional locking pins (7) within the dog toy (100). As illustrated in Figs. 2-5, the dog must slide doors (1,1’) in order to observe the interior of the toy (100, Fig. 3), in which pins (7) are removed in order to lift access panel (2) out of the toy (100, Fig. 5), in which the dog must remove pins (7,8) in order to actuate panel (3, Fig. 6). In short, there are multiple levels within the puzzle of Citak, in which the animal can not access the lowest level until the animal solves the first puzzle of covering panels (1,1’).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642