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
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, 4-12, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lytle (US 20120234248 A1) in view of Waldner (US 5146872 A).
Regarding claim 1, Lytle discloses a pet toy comprising:
a base including a basin and a chute extending from the basin (base 22, hopper 11, chute 15; Figs. 1 and 6 Figs. 1 and 6 show base 22 with hopper 11 that extends into a chute 15);
a cover removably coupled to the base (¶ 0033, lines 13-15, “A lid is disposed above the house, whereby the lid may be removed to provide access for a user to refill food product into the hopper 11”); and
at least one extendable assembly including an actuator (pedal 12, linkage arms 17; Figs. 1 and 6), and a hollow structure including a hollow structure cover and a bounding wall extending downward from a periphery of the hollow structure cover, the hollow structure cover and the bounding wall defining an internal cavity (diverter 14; Figs. 6 and 7 show diverter 14 is a hollow structure with walls that form a cover and extend downward from their periphery, and that captures food in its internal cavity and is rotatably coupled to linkage arms 17 and pedal 12), wherein the at least one extendable assembly configured to extend into the basin toward a center of the basin and capture pet food within the internal cavity when the actuator is depressed and haul the captured pet food to the chute when the actuator is released (Figs. 6 and 7 show the linkage arms 17 extend into the basin at the bottom of hopper 11 and capture and release food when a downward force is applied to the pedal 12 and when it is released).
Lytle, however, fails to specifically disclose such that the hollow structure includes an open bottom opposite the hollow structure cover.
Waldner is in the field of animal food dispensers and teaches such that the hollow structure includes an open bottom opposite the hollow structure cover (gate 36; Figs. 4 and 5 show gate 36 is a hollow structure that includes an open bottom opposite its cover as detailed in Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of animal food dispensers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lytle such that the hollow structure includes an open bottom opposite the hollow structure cover, as taught by the hollow structure of Waldner. The hollow structure would more precisely regulate the amount of food metered to the animal, which would improve the delivery of the feed ration. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Lytle in view of Waldner discloses the device of claim 1.
Lytle discloses wherein the basin includes a bottom panel having an elevated portion disposed at the center of the basin (trap door 24; Figs. 1 and 6 show trap door 24 is a bottom panel in the center of hopper 11 and in elevated position).
Regarding claim 5, Lytle in view of Waldner discloses the device of claim 1.
Lytle discloses wherein the extendable assembly further comprises:
a linking member rotatably coupled to the actuator (linkage arms 17; Figs. 1 and 6), wherein the hollow structure is configured to capture the pet food when the actuator is depressed and haul the captured pet food to the chute when the actuator is released and is rotatably coupled to the linking member, and wherein the actuator is rotatably coupled to the base (diverter 14; Figs. 6 and 7 show diverter 14 is a hollow structure that captures food and is rotatably coupled to linkage arms 17 and pedal 12).
Regarding claim 6, Lytle in view of Waldner discloses the device of claim 5.
Lytle discloses wherein: the actuator is rotatably coupled to the base at a first location (Figs. 1 and 6 show pedal 12 rotatably coupled to base 22); and the actuator is rotatably coupled to the linking member at a second location, the second location different than the first location (Figs. 1 and 6 show pedal 12 rotatably coupled to linkage arms 17 as different location).
Regarding claim 7, Lytle in view of Waldner discloses the device of claim 5.
Lytle discloses wherein the basin comprises: a bottom panel including an opening disposed in the bottom panel adjacent to the chute (trap door 24; Figs. 1 and 6 show trap door 24 is a bottom panel in the center of hopper 11 and arranged above the chute, and Fig. 7 shows trap door has an opening adjacent to the chute); a guide portion extending downward from the bottom panel at the opening; and a guide wall protruding from the guide portion (Fig. 1 shows cam adjusters 27 are guide portions that form walls that extend down and back from the trap door 24 and door extensions 28).
Regarding claim 8, Lytle in view of Waldner discloses the device of claim 7.
Lytle discloses wherein the linking member comprises: a top panel (Fig. 1 shows trap door 24 is a top panel attached to the linking members); a pair of side panels extending downward from the top panel (Fig. 1 shows door extensions 28 are side panels that extend downward from trap door 24); and a post extending laterally outward from one of the pair of side panels, wherein the post is configured to contact the guide wall when the actuator is depressed, the guide wall controlling a position of the linking member, and thus, an arrangement of the extendable assembly as the extendable assembly extends toward the center of the basin (¶ 0034, lines 12-20, “A horizontal side link 16 attaches directly to the trap door extensions 28 at the trap door hinge point, while a cam adjuster 27 allows the horizontal side link 16 to be adjustably positioned with respect to the hinge point. The side link 16 extends to the opposite side of the hopper to actuate the slide door release mechanism. The side link 16 is be comprised of a singular member wherein its starting position is adjustable via the cam adjuster to modify the amount of pedal 12 depression required release the slide gate”).
Regarding claim 9, Lytle discloses a pet toy comprising:
a base including a basin, an outlet, and a chute extending between the basin and the outlet (base 22, hopper 11, chute 15; Figs. 1 and 6 show base 22 with hopper 11 that extends into a chute 15, Fig. 2 shows bottom of chute 15 is an outlet); and
an extendable assembly including:
an actuator rotatably coupled to the base (pedal 12; Figs. 1 and 6 show pedal 12 is rotatably coupled to hopper 11 and linkage arms 17);
a linking member rotatably coupled to the actuator (linkage arms 17; Figs. 1 and 6); and
a hollow structure rotatably coupled to the linking member (diverter 14; Figs. 6 and 7 show diverter 14 is a hollow structure rotatably coupled to linkage arms 17), the hollow structure including a hollow structure cover and a bounding wall extending downward from a periphery of the hollow structure cover, the hollow structure cover and the bounding wall defining an internal cavity (diverter 14; Figs. 6 and 7 show diverter 14 is a hollow structure with walls that form a cover and extend downward from their periphery, and that captures food in its internal cavity), wherein the extendable assembly is configured to move from a starting arrangement to an extended arrangement when a downward force is applied to the actuator (Figs. 6 and 7 show the pedal 12 and linkage arms 17 are configured to move to an extended arrangement when a downward force is applied to the pedal 12),
wherein the extendable assembly is configured to move from the extended arrangement to the starting arrangement when the actuator is released (Figs. 6 and 7 show the pedal 12 and linkage arms 17 are configured to move to a starting arrangement when a downward force is not applied to the pedal 12), and
wherein the internal cavity of hollow structure is configured to capture food disposed in the basin as the extendable assembly moves from the starting arrangement to the extended arrangement and to haul the captured food within the internal cavity to the chute when the extendable assembly moves from the extended arrangement to the starting arrangement (Figs. 6 and 7 show the linkage arms 17 extend into the basin at the bottom of hopper 11 and capture and release food when a downward force is applied to the pedal 12 and when it is released).
Lytle, however, fails to specifically disclose such that the hollow structure includes an open bottom opposite the hollow structure cover.
Waldner is in the field of animal food dispensers and teaches such that the hollow structure includes an open bottom opposite the hollow structure cover (gate 36; Figs. 4 and 5 show gate 36 is a hollow structure that includes an open bottom opposite its cover as detailed in Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of animal food dispensers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lytle such that the hollow structure includes an open bottom opposite the hollow structure cover, as taught by the hollow structure of Waldner. The hollow structure would more precisely regulate the amount of food metered to the animal, which would improve the delivery of the feed ration. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Lytle in view of Waldner discloses the device of claim 9.
Lytle discloses wherein the basin comprises: a bottom panel; and an opening disposed in the bottom panel adjacent to the chute (trap door 24; Figs. 1 and 6 show trap door 24 is a bottom panel in the center of hopper 11 and arranged above the chute, and Fig. 7 shows trap door has an opening adjacent to the chute).
Regarding claim 11, Lytle in view of Waldner discloses the device of claim 10.
Lytle discloses wherein: the basin includes a guide portion extending downward from the bottom panel along the opening, the guide portion including a guide wall extending toward a center of the opening (Fig. 1 shows cam adjusters 27 are guide portions that form walls that extend down and back from the trap door 24 opposite to the opening and along door extensions 28); the linking member includes a post extending laterally from a side of the linking member; and when the actuator is depressed, the post of the linking member contacts the guide wall, causing the hollow structure to rotate to an open position (¶ 0034, lines 12-20).
Regarding claim 12, Lytle in view of Waldner discloses the device of claim 11.
Lytle discloses wherein the hollow structure includes a pair of coupling tabs (Fig. 1 shows diverter 14 and trap door 24 have a pair of door extensions 28), each of the pair of coupling tabs configured to be rotatably coupled to the linking member and including an angled edge (Figs. 1 and 6 show door extensions 28 with angled edges and rotatably coupled to linking members 17).
Regarding claim 16, Lytle in view of Waldner discloses the device of claim 9.
Lytle discloses wherein the base includes a biasing member disposed between the base and the actuator and configured to bias the extendable assembly to the starting arrangement (spring 23; Figs. 1, 6, and 7).
Regarding claim 17, Lytle discloses a pet toy comprising:
a base including a basin and a chute extending from the basin (base 22, hopper 11, chute 15; Figs. 1 and 6 Figs. 1 and 6 show base 22 with hopper 11 that extends into a chute 15);
a cover removably coupled to the base (¶ 0033, lines 13-15); and
at least one extendable assembly including an actuator (pedal 12, linkage arms 17; Figs. 1 and 6), and a hollow structure including a hollow structure cover and a bounding wall extending downward from a periphery of the cover, the hollow structure cover and the bounding wall defining an internal cavity (diverter 14; Figs. 6 and 7 show diverter 14 is a hollow structure with walls that form a cover and extend downward from their periphery, and that captures food in its internal cavity), the at least one extendable assembly configured to extend into the basin and capture food when the actuator is depressed and haul the captured food to the chute when the actuator is released (Figs. 6 and 7 show the linkage arms 17 extend into the basin at the bottom of hopper 11 and capture and release food when a downward force is applied to the pedal 12 and when it is released).
Lytle, however, fails to specifically disclose such that the hollow structure includes an open bottom opposite the hollow structure cover; and a pair of extendable assemblies coupled to the base, each of the pair of extendable assemblies including an actuator.
Waldner is in the field of animal food dispensers and teaches such that the hollow structure includes an open bottom opposite the hollow structure cover (gate 36; Figs. 4 and 5 show gate 36 is a hollow structure that includes an open bottom opposite its cover as detailed in Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of animal food dispensers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lytle such that the hollow structure includes an open bottom opposite the hollow structure cover, as taught by the hollow structure of Waldner. The hollow structure would more precisely regulate the amount of food metered to the animal, which would improve the delivery of the feed ration. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have provided the device of Lytle with a pair of extendable assemblies coupled to the base, each of the pair of extendable assemblies including an actuator in order to facilitate simultaneous use by different pets. Additionally, 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.
Regarding claim 18, Lytle in view of Waldner discloses the device of claim 17, including a pair of extendable assemblies, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the pair of extendable assemblies are coupled to opposite sides of the base. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the modified Lytle with the pair of extendable assemblies coupled to opposite sides of the base, in order to allow for multiple pets to more easily simultaneously access the device. Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 20, Lytle in view of Waldner discloses the device of claim 17.
Lytle discloses wherein the basin includes a bottom panel having an elevated portion disposed at a center of the basin (trap door 24; Figs. 1 and 6 show trap door 24 is a bottom panel in the center of hopper 11 and in elevated position).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lytle (US 20120234248 A1) and Waldner (US 5146872 A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lindskov (WO 2015166301 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Lytle in view of Waldner discloses the device of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the cover is comprised of a transparent material.
Lindskov is in the field of pet food dispensers and teaches wherein the cover is comprised of a transparent material (page 24, lines 5-9, “At the exterior face 91 of the second lid part 5 the clamp 89 for connecting the actuator head 88 to the second lid part 5 may have a transparent or light-penetrateable top cover 92 that allows light to pass through, e.g. an outwards curving transparent plastic cover”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pet food dispensers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lytle in view of Waldner such that the cover is comprised of a transparent material, as taught by the transparent cover of Lindskov. The cover would allow light to pass through into the basin of the device, allowing the user to see the interior contents including treat or food supply levels. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lytle (US 20120234248 A1) and Waldner (US 5146872 A), as applied to claims 1 and 17, and further in view of Stauffer (US 7856944 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Lytle in view of Waldner discloses the device of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the cover includes a scent hole.
Stauffer is in the field of pet food dispensers and teaches wherein the cover includes a scent hole (openings 34a-34k; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pet food dispensers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lytle in view of Waldner such that the cover includes a scent hole, as taught by the scent holes of Stauffer. The scent holes would allow for scents within the cover to escape, which would attract pets. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, Lytle in view of Waldner discloses the device of claim 17, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the cover includes at least two scent holes, each of the at least two scent holes extending through the cover at each of two opposite sides of the cover, the opposite sides of the cover corresponding to sides of the base having an extendable assembly.
Stauffer is in the field of pet food dispensers and teaches wherein the cover includes at least two scent holes, each of the at least two scent holes extending through the cover at each of two opposite sides of the cover, the opposite sides of the cover corresponding to sides of the base having an extendable assembly (openings 34a-34k; Fig. 1 shows scent holes extend around perimeter of cover and are on opposite sides).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pet food dispensers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lytle in view of Waldner such that the cover includes at least two scent holes, each of the at least two scent holes extending through the cover at each of two opposite sides of the cover, the opposite sides of the cover corresponding to sides of the base having an extendable assembly, as taught by the scent holes of Stauffer. The scent holes would allow for scents within the cover to escape, which would attract pets. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lytle (US 20120234248 A1) and Waldner (US 5146872 A), as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Kane (US 7270080 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Lytle in view of Waldner discloses the device of claim 9, including wherein when the actuator is partially depressed, the post contacts a bottom surface of the guide wall, causing the linking member to pull the hollow structure downward, thus causing the hollow structure to rotate about the angled edge of each of the pair of coupling tabs to the open position as the hollowed structure is pulled downward (Fig. 7; ¶ 0034, lines 12-20), however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the actuator is partially depressed, moving the linking member downward.
Kane is in the field of pet food dispensers and teaches wherein the actuator is partially depressed, moving the linking member downward (Fig. 2 shows the path of rotational travel for pivot member 42, with top side 44 as a linking member connected to panel 54, such that when the panel 54 is depressed, the top side 44 moves downward).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pet food dispensers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lytle in view of Waldner such that the actuator is partially depressed, moving the linking member downward, as taught by the pivot member of Kane. The pivot member would result in less moving parts, which would simplify the overall dispensing action of the device. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Lytle in view of Waldner and Kane discloses the device of claim 13, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein when the actuator is completely depressed, the post travels past the guide wall, the linking member moves upwards (Lytle; Fig. 7; ¶ 0034, lines 12-20), and the hollow structure rotates from the open position to a closed position (Kane; Fig. 4 shows that when the panel 54 is completely depressed, the pivot member 42 is in a closed position, preventing additional treats 8 from entering the pivot).
Regarding claim 15, Lytle in view of Waldner and Kane discloses the device of claim 13.
Lytle discloses wherein when the actuator is released from a completely depressed position, the post travels above the guide wall as the extendable assembly moves to the starting arrangement such that the hollow structure remains in a closed position and hauls food disposed within an internal cavity of the hollow structure to the chute (Figs. 6 and 7 show the pedal 12 and linkage arms 17 are configured to move to a starting arrangement when a downward force is not applied to the pedal 12, with food free to travel down the chute).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument on page 8 that “the diverter 13 of Lytle, illustrated in FIGS. 6 and 7 of Lytle, does not include ‘a bounding wall extending downward from a periphery of the hollow structure cover.’ (emphasis added). Instead, the Applicant respectfully submits that, as discussed during the interview conducted on March 4, 2026, the diverter 14 of Lytle includes one or more walls extending upward from a base or bottom panel of the diverter,” the Examiner submits that the diverter 14 is a cover that comprises walls which form top periphery, since the walls extend downward from this top periphery to meet the base of the diverter, Lytle discloses “a bounding wall extending downward from a periphery of the hollow structure cover” as claimed.
Regarding the argument on pages 8 and 9 that “FIGS. 6 and 7 of Lytle do not appear to show the linkage arms 17 extending into the basin at the bottom of the hopper 11. Second, the Applicant respectfully submits that no portion of the animal food feeder described in Lytle ‘extend[s] into the basin toward a center of the basin,’ ‘capture[s] the pet food within the internal cavity,’ and hauls (i.e., pulls, or drags) ‘the captured pet food to the chute.’ Instead, the Applicant submits that in Lytle, food merely falls under the effects of gravity,” the Examiner submits that Figs. 6 and 7 show linkage arms link the pedal 12 to trapdoor 24, which is inside the basin at the bottom of hopper 11. It is further shown that a portion of the linkage arms 17 extends into trapdoor 24 to form a single member as evidenced by the preservation of orientation in Figs. 6 and 7, where the trapdoor 24 alternates between a closed and open position, with the trapdoor 24 and portion of linking arm 17 being coincident along a common axis in both orientations.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments have been considered but 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Rokos, US 6928955 B1, discusses an animal feeder.
Gal, US 6367417 B1, discusses an electronically controlled animal food dispenser.
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 SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights