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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/25 has been entered.
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.
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) 1-2, 4, 9-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griswold US20200275634 in view of Niese US 20230255178.
Regarding claim 1, Griswold teaches a lure for large game comprising:
a container (10 figure 2) defining an interior space (22 figure 2), the container comprising;
a food storage compartment configured to hold a bulk supply of food (22/18 figure 2);
a main compartment (52);
a movable partition positioned between the food storage compartment and the main compartment (68 figures 2-4);
a motor assembly operably coupled to the movable partition (74 figure 5); and
a programmable control unit communicatively coupled to the motor assembly (114 figure 6 and paragraph 0024), wherein the programmable control unit is configured to
actuate the motor assembly to move the movable partition to transfer a predetermined quantity of food from the food storage compartment into the main compartment (paragraph 0024);
but does not specify a hatch configured to selectively provide access to the main compartment from outside the container; the programmable control unit communicatively coupled to the hatch; or the programmable control unit configured to after the transfer of the predetermined quantity of food, actuate the hatch to open to allow an animal to access the predetermined quantity of food located within the main compartment.
Niese; however, does teach a hatch configured to selectively provide access to a main compartment from outside a container (60 figure 2); and a programmable control unit communicatively coupled to the hatch (paragraphs 0049-0050). 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 hatch, in order to further protect the feed from weather or to meet user design feeding schedules, etc.
It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the programmable control unit to open the hatch after transfer of food to the main compartment, in order to provide the open position when there is food present to feed, which is the intended purpose of opening the hatch. For example, a user could obviously program the controller of Griswold to operate the motor to dispense the food before the “timeframe” described by Niese for the open position. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention; and it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and it is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the references teach the lure of claim 1, wherein Niese further teaches a container is box shaped with six faces (figures 1-3) and is constructed from a durable and waterproof material (paragraph 0036). 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 shape and material, in order to meet design preferences; since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results; and it has been held that a prima facie obviousness exists where the selection of a known material is based on its suitability for its intended use.
Regarding claim 4, the references teach the lure of claim 1, wherein Griswold further teaches the movable partition is actuated by the motor assembly selected from the group consisting of a worm screw motor and a linear actuator (paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 9, the references teach the lure of claim 1, wherein Niese further teaches the programmable control unit is configured to cause the hatch to open for a predetermined duration sufficient to allow access by a target animal while limiting access by non-target animals (as described in previous rejections).
Regarding claim 10, the references teach the lure of claim 1, wherein Niese further teaches comprising mounting brackets on a backside of the container (near 75 in figure 3) for attaching the container to a support structure (such as the support structure of the solar panel 79 as shown in figure 3). 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 arrangement of elements in order to enhance efficient power supply means to the system, etc.
Regarding claim 12, the references teach the lure of claim 1, wherein Griswold further teaches the container includes a top lid for accessing internal components for maintenance and refilling the food storage compartment (30 figure 1).
Claim(s) 5-8 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griswold and Niese in view of Smith US20230032312.
Regarding claim 5, the references teach the lure of claim 1, but do not specify wherein the programmable control unit is configured to activate a sound-producing device in response to actuation of the hatch.
Smith; however, does teach an audio alerting speaker (210 paragraph 0037). 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 speaker, in order to efficient alert when food is accessible; since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 6, the references teach the lure of claim 5, wherein the programmable control unit comprises a printed circuit board (PCB) which is programmable via software to select the timing and duration of the opening and closing of the hatch and partition (all known components/functions of programmable control units).
Regarding claim 7, the references teach the lure of claim 5, wherein the sound-producing device is a speaker (see previous rejections) that is electrically connected to the programmable control unit (as previously described).
Regarding claim 8, the references teach the lure of claim 5, wherein Niese further teaches further comprising a power source (76 paragraph 0042 and figures 7-8) located within the container (described in paragraph 0042) that provides electrical power to the programmable control unit (also described in paragraph 0042), and a hatch motor assembly configured to actuate the hatch (see previous rejections);
but do not specify the sound-producing device.
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 arrangement of parts, in order to protect elements from weather, etc.; since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Furthermore, Smith teaches the sound-production device (see previous rejections). 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 speaker, in order to efficient alert when food is accessible.
Regarding claim 13, the references teach the lure of claim 5, wherein the sound-producing device is a speaker integrated into the container and electrically connected to the programmable control unit (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 14, the references teach the lure of claim 5, wherein the programmable control unit comprises a printed circuit board (PCB) which is programmable via software to select the timing and duration of the opening and closing of the hatch and the actuation of the partition (see previous rejections).
Response to Arguments
Response to applicant’s arguments can be found in the updated rejections above.
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