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 1-2, 5-7, 9-11, and 14 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “2” has been used to designate both the vibrator housing mounting plate and vibration cone mounting plate. See fig. 6B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Additionally, independent claims 1 and 10 have been amended to include “at least one rubber grommet configured to gap the vibrator housing mounting plate from a feed hopper, wherein the at least one rubber grommet is interchangeable based on feed type”. As best understood, the amended limitation is requiring at least one rubber grommet that is able to create a gap between the vibrator housing and a feed hopper. However, this appears to be different than what is disclosed in the instant disclosure and how the instant invention functions. Please also review the 112(a) rejection detailed in the Office Action dated 06/18/2025 directed to similar language originally presented in claims 3 and 12.
Applicant states that support for these amendments are found in paragraphs [0008]-[0009], [0048]-[0049], and Figures 8D and 8G-8I of the instant disclosure:
Paragraphs [0008]-[0009] state that the “hopper may be set relative to the vibrator housing mounting plate with a rubber grommet to open and close a gap out of which the feed flows”,
Paragraph [0048] states that the “hopper and the feed plate may be set by bushings that may be interchangeable to open and close the gap out of which feed flow”, and
Paragraph [0049] states that “the vibrator cone may be mounted on vibrator cone mounting plate 2, and there may be rubber grommet 7 (or bushings) which may set a feed hopper relative to vibrator cone mounting plate 2 to open and close a gap out of which feed may flow”.
Most notably from the excerpts above, paragraph [0049] states that a rubber grommet 7 may set a feed hopper relative to a vibrator cone mounting plate 2. It is noted that reference character 2 in figure 6B appears to incorrectly point to the vibrator housing mounting plate, as addressed in the drawing objection above. This appears to be different than what is claimed in the amended limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
529
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8D of the instant disclosure.
PNG
media_image2.png
411
971
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8B of the instant disclosure.
As shown in figures 8B and 8D above, the rubber grommets 7 appear to set the size of the gap, i.e., a feed outlet, between the vibrator mounting plate housing and the vibrator cone mounting plate 2, and this is the gap that is changeable based on the size of the grommet. However, the limitation requires that the grommet is setting the distance between the vibrator housing mounting plate and the feed hopper, which is not associated with the size of the feed outlet gap. It is unclear if applicant was intending to recite at least one rubber grommet configured to open and close a feed outlet between the vibration housing mounting plate and a vibrator plate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear what the following limitation is requiring, as it does not appear to reflect how the invention works based on the applicant’s disclosure. Claim 1 requires:
a vibrator housing;
a vibrator housing mounting plate on a top portion of the vibrator housing, the vibrator housing mounting plate having a plate ramp with a shape that corresponds to a shape of the feeding device and a feed trough, wherein the plate ramp is configured to vibrate and cause thicker feed to travel down the plate ramp and onto a feed ramp of the feeding device…
wherein the vibration housing mounting plate is configured to vibrate from motion of the motor to move feed to each side of the vibration housing mounting plate through the feeding device and disperse the feed.
According the instant disclosure, it appears that the vibrator housing mounting plate is part of the vibrator housing while the plate ramp is a part of the vibration plate, and are two different components system (i.e., the vibrator housing mounting plate does not include the plate ramp). As best understood, Figure 8C shows that the top surface with reference character 5 is referring to the vibrator housing mounting plate, which is part of the housing that surrounds the vibrator plate. It is unclear if applicant is attempting to recite a vibrator housing including a vibrator housing mounting plate on a top portion of the vibrator housing, and a vibrator plate including a plate ramp with a shape that corresponds to a shape of the feeding device and a feed trough, wherein the vibration plate is configured to vibrate from motion of the motor to move feed to each side of the vibration plate through the feeding device (feeding outlet?) and disperse the feed. Independent claim 10 is indefinite for the same reasons.
Further regarding claims 1 and 10, the term “thicker feed” is a relative term and is indefinite. The examiner suggests amending this to recite “a viscous feed” in view of the specification.
Additionally, claims 1 and 10 are indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the recitation, “at least one rubber grommet configured to gap the vibrator housing mounting plate from a feed hopper, wherein the at least one rubber grommet is interchangeable based on feed type”, in view of applicant’s disclosure. Please refer also to the 112(a) rejection above. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
In view of the rejections above under 35 USC § 112, the claims referred to in any and all rejections below are rejected as best understood. Claims 2, 5-7, 9, 11, and 14, depending on rejected claims 1 and 10 above, are rejected the same.
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, 2, 5, 6-7, 9-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (KR 20210136756 A), hereafter referred to as “Song”, in view of Walker et al. (US 4722300 A), hereafter referred to as “Walker”.
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches a vibration feed system for a feeding device for dispensing feed for animal consumption (figs. 1-8), the vibration feed system comprising:
a vibrator housing (200, 210, 220, 300, 400);
a vibrator housing mounting plate (300) on a top portion of the vibrator housing (fig. 6a-6b), the vibrator housing mounting plate having a plate ramp (400; figs. 6a-6b) with a shape that corresponds to a shape of the feeding device and a feed trough (figs. 6a-6b), wherein the plate ramp is configured to vibrate and cause thicker feed to travel down the plate ramp and onto a feed ramp of the feeding device (machine translation, paragraph [0035], teaching that the vibrating mechanism in combination with element 400 would allow a thicker feed to move down);
at least one resilient member (310) configured to gap the vibrator housing mounting plate from a feed hopper (100; fig. 6B showing that 310 controls the distance between 300 and the outlet of 100, as best understood), wherein the at least one resilient member is interchangeable based on feed type (fig. 6B; 310 is removable/replaceable), but does not explicitly teach that the resilient member is a rubber grommet.
Additionally, Song further appears to teach a motor within the vibrator housing (machine translation, paragraphs [0077]-[0078]), wherein the vibration housing mounting plate is configured to vibrate from motion of the motor to move feed to each side of the vibration housing mounting plate through the feeding device and disperse the feed (machine translation, paragraphs [0077]-[0078]), but does not explicitly teach the above limitation.
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). Here, applicant has not shown patentable significance of a resilient member in the form of a spring, rather than a rubber grommet (paragraph [0049] of the instant specification). 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 resilient member in the form of a spring of Song for a rubber grommet, in order to further accommodate the size and type of feed dispensed, as both the spring and the rubber grommet function as elastic member positioned between a hopper and a vibration mechanism to consistently distribute feed through a feed outlet gap (machine translation, paragraph [0035] and figs. 6A-6B of Song).
Walker teaches a vibration feed system (figs. 1-8) including a motor (32) within a vibrator housing (27; fig. 2).
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 vibration feed system of Song to include a motor within the vibrator housing, as taught by Walker, in order to provide automated feeding (machine translation of Song at paragraph [0077] and Walker at col. 7, line 51-col. 8, line 15).
The combined teachings of Song in view of Walker would result in wherein the vibration housing mounting plate is configured to vibrate from motion of the motor to move feed to each side of the vibration housing mounting plate through the feeding device and disperse the feed.
Regarding claim 2, Song in view of Walker teaches the vibration feed system of claim 1, and Song further teaches that the vibration feed system is removable from a hopper (100) for storing the feed (fig. 6, e.g., showing that 100 is removable from the vibration system via 211).
Regarding claim 5, Song in view of Walker teaches the vibration feed system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the vibration feed system is operable with a timer, one or more solar panels, and/or a battery.
Walker further teaches that the vibration feed system is operable with a timer (73) and/or a battery (51).
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 vibration feed system of Song in view of Walker, such that the vibration feed system is operable with a timer and/or a battery, as further taught by Walker, in order to automate the feeding system and power the system without the need for a plug.
Regarding claim 6, Song in view of Walker teaches the vibration feed system of claim 5, and Walker further teaches that the timer (73) is connected to the motor (32) and configured to send signals to the motor to start and stop (col. 7, line 12-col. 8, line 15).
Regarding claim 7, Song in view of Walker teaches the vibration feed system of claim 5, and Walker further teaches that the timer (73) stores one or more predetermined feeding times and activates the motor (32) at the one or more predetermined feeding times (col. 7, line 12-col. 8, line 15).
Regarding claim 9, Song in view of Walker teaches the vibration feed system of claim 1, and Song further teaches that the vibrator housing (200, 210, 220, 300, 400) further comprising: a vibrator housing door (spaces formed on 200; fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Song teaches a vibration feed system for a feeding device for dispensing feed for animal consumption (figs. 1-8), the vibration feed system comprising:
a vibrator housing (200, 210, 220, 300, 400);
a vibrator housing mounting plate (300) on a top portion of the vibrator housing (fig. 6a-6b), the vibrator housing mounting plate having a plate ramp (400; figs. 6a-6b), wherein the plate ramp is configured to vibrate and cause thicker feed to travel down the plate ramp and onto a feed ramp of the feeding device (machine translation, paragraph [0035], teaching that the vibrating mechanism would allow a thicker feed to move down); and
at least one resilient member (310) configured to gap the vibrator housing mounting plate from a feed hopper (100; fig. 6B showing that 310 controls the distance between 300 and the outlet of 100, as best understood), wherein the at least one resilient member is interchangeable based on feed type (fig. 6B; 310 is removable/replaceable), but does not explicitly teach that the resilient member is a rubber grommet.
wherein the vibration feed system is configured to use vibration to move feed through the feeding device and disperse the feed (see attached machine translation, paragraph [0001]).
Additionally, Song further appears to teach a motor within the vibrator housing (machine translation, paragraphs [0077]-[0078]), but does not explicitly teach the above limitation. In addition, Song teaches that element 230 has a cone-like shape (fig. 7), but does not explicitly teach a square-pyramid shape.
It is well settled, however, that merely changing the size or shape of a prior art device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular size or shape was significant (MPEP 2144, citing In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).) In this case, applicant has not shown patentable significance of the plate ramp having a square-pyramid shape (see, e.g., the instant specification at paragraph [0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Song in view of Walker, such that the plate ramp is a square-pyramid shape, in order to accommodate the size and shape of the feeder.
In addition, 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). Here, applicant has not shown patentable significance of a resilient member in the form of a spring, rather than a rubber grommet (paragraph [0049] of the instant specification). 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 resilient member in the form of a spring of Song for a rubber grommet, in order to further accommodate the size and type of feed dispensed, as both the spring and the rubber grommet function as elastic member positioned between a hopper and a vibration mechanism to consistently distribute feed through a feed outlet gap (machine translation, paragraph [0035] and figs. 6A-6B of Song).
Walker teaches a vibration feed system (figs. 1-8) including a motor (32) within a vibrator housing (27; fig. 2).
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 vibration feed system of Song to include a motor within the vibrator housing, as taught by Walker, in order to provide automated feeding (machine translation of Song at paragraph [0077] and Walker at col. 7, line 51-col. 8, line 15).
Regarding claim 11, Song in view of Walker teaches the vibration feed system of claim 10, and Song further teaches wherein the vibration feed system is removable from a hopper (100) for storing the feed (fig. 7, e.g., showing that 100 is removable from the vibration system via 211).
Regarding claim 14, Song in view of Walker teaches the vibration feed system of claim 10, and Song further teaches that the vibrator housing (200, 210, 220, 300, 400) further comprising: a vibrator housing door (spaces formed on 200; fig. 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As shown above, Song in view of Walker teaches each and every limitation of independent claims 1 and 10, as best understood in view of the 112(a) and 112(b) rejection above.
Conclusion
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
