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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Animal feeder system funnel hopper with rotating spring agitating auger.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/5/25.
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.
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(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herr US 3,424,350 in view of Pajot US 5,348,195.
Regarding Claim 1, Herr teaches an animal feeder system, the animal feeder system comprising:
a housing having a first housing wall (12 of figure 1) and a second housing wall (76 of figure 1) that define a feed storage chamber,
the housing also having a dispensing outlet formed in a lowermost portion of the storage chamber (26 of figure 1),
the housing assembly further having a lid to removably enclose the storage chamber (24 of figure 1);
a drive assembly having a drive frame (36), a drive motor (44), a driveshaft coupler (40), and a controller (102);
an agitation assembly having a rotating driveshaft (50) coupled to the driveshaft coupler of the drive assembly,
an arm assembly having a plurality of arms extending radially outward from the driveshaft (56/58), and an auger assembly (54);
but does not specify the arms as “spring” arms; or wherein each spring arm of the plurality of spring arms has a spring arm elasticity value that is proportional to a local reference distance extending between the first housing wall and the second housing wall, wherein the local reference distance is aligned with said spring arm.
Pajot; however, teaches semi-rigid/elastic “spring steel” blades (column 3 lines 40-46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such types of blades, in order to provide some semi-rigid characteristics to the chains in order to avoid the chains getting stuck in a “down” configuration.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the spring arms with the recited elasticity value, in order to meet the design requirements for a particular type of granular product within the system; since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2, the references teach the animal feeder system of claim 1, wherein the feed storage chamber has an upper portion and a middle portion (shown in both references), and at least two spring arms of the plurality of spring arms are located in the upper portion (both references show at least two arms located within an “upper” portion).
Regarding Claim 3, the references teach the animal feeder system of claim 2, wherein Pajot further teaches the middle portion of the feed storage chamber has a substantially frustoconical shape (figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such a shape, in order to better direct the granular product within the system.
Regarding Claim 4, the references teach the animal feeder system of claim 1, but do not specify wherein a separation distance between a distal end of an uppermost spring arm of the plurality of spring arms and an interior surface of an upper portion of the feed storage chamber is less than 3mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such a distance, in order to meet flow design requirements for a particular granular product; since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 5, the references teach the animal feeder system of claim 1 wherein a separation distance between a distal end of an intermediate spring arm of the plurality of spring arms and an interior surface of an upper portion of the feed storage chamber is less than 3mm (see claim 4 rejection).
Regarding Claim 6, the references teach the animal feeder system of claim 1, wherein a separation distance between a distal end of a lowermost spring arm of the plurality of spring arms and an interior surface of an middle portion of the feed storage chamber is less than 3mm (see claim 4 rejection).
Regarding Claim 7, the references teach the animal feeder system of claim 1, but do not specify wherein the spring tension value of an uppermost spring arm is greater than the spring tension value of an intermediate spring arm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such a tension value, in order to meet flow design requirements for a particular granular product; since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 8, the references teach the animal feeder system of claim 1, wherein Herr further teaches each spring arm of the plurality of spring arms has an interior end portion that extends through the driveshaft (arms 56 and 58 are shown in figure 8 with the recited arrangement).
Regarding Claim 9, the references teach the animal feeder system of claim 1, wherein Herr further teaches each spring arm of the plurality of spring arms has a spring arm support that interfaces with the driveshaft and extends through the spring arm (bolts 12 shown in figures 8-10 interface with the driveshaft via straps 108/110 and extend through the arms best shown in figure 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm MST.
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 at (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 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.
/JESSICA B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644