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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-11 of copending Application No. 19/017,792. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are coextensive in scope to the claims of the copending application. Both teach a pet water dispenser with a water tank, cover, and water pump. Merely calling the members of the water pump different names, e.g. accommodating chamber first and second versus pump cartridge outer and inner wall housing, pump hood, does not present a patentable distinction between the two copending applications. The attempt to broaden and/or narrow the claims does not present a patentable distinction since it is the same invention being claimed in both applications and changes are merely obvious engineering design choices. For example, merely eliminating an element when that function is not desired is an obvious engineering design choice.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-15 of copending Application No. 19/270,415. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are coextensive in scope to the claims of the copending application. Both applications teach a pet water dispenser with a pump, filter, impeller, water storage, water inlet, water outlet. Although the claims are not exact copies, the minor discrepancies between them are merely obvious changes and do not present patentable distinctions between the two applications.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China Patent CN 217336936 to Liang et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,277,800 to Dieckmann et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Liang teaches pet water dispenser, comprising a shell (Liang Fig. 1 #2) and a water pump (Liang Fig. 2 #102), wherein the shell comprises a water tank and a top cover (Liang Fig. 1 #3), and the top cover covers the water tank; the water pump comprises a pump cartridge (Liang Fig. 2 #102) and a pump housing (Liang Fig. 7 #101), and a water outlet (Liang Fig. 7 #1011) is formed in the pump housing and communicated to a surface of the top cover (Liang Fig. 1).
Liang is silent on the structure of the pump cartridge and pump housing details. However, Dieckmann teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide the pump cartridge (Dieckmann Fig. 3, #17, #19, #18) comprises a pump hood (Dieckmann Fig. 1 #50, #51, and #52), a pump motor (Dieckmann Fig. 2 #17) and a pump blade (Dieckmann Fig. 2 #25), the pump motor is arranged in the pump hood, the pump blade is arranged at a bottom of the pump hood (Dieckmann Fig. 4 #25 is at the bottom of #52), and the pump motor is in transmission connection with the pump blade; the pump cartridge is arranged in the pump housing (Dieckmann Fig. 1 #50 is arranged into #60), and a water passage is formed between an outer wall of the pump cartridge (Dieckmann Fig. 4 passage between outer wall of pump cartridge #54/#52 and inner wall of pump housing #62, arrows travel in passage) and an inner wall of the pump housing and connects the water tank and the water outlet (Dieckmann Fig. 3 #72); upper ends of the pump cartridge (Dieckmann upper end of Fig. 1 #52) and the pump housing (Dieckmann Fig. 1 and 3 #60) extend to be above a plane in which the surface of the top cover is located, such that an upper end of the water passage extends to be above the plane to communicate to the water outlet provided above the surface of the top cover (Dieckmann Fig. 3 elements #60 and #52 extend above the surface of the water and terminate at the outlet; the outlet of Liang is above the cover and above the water level). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Liang with the teachings of Dieckmann before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for the filter features as taught by Dieckmann. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known pump chamber with another to obtain predictable results and/or the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Liang as modified teaches the pump cartridge is movably arranged in the pump housing, and the pump housing is movably connected to the shell (Dieckmann Fig. 1 #50 is separable from housing #60, thus the pump cartridge is movable; Dieckmann Fig. 3 #15 suction cups allows housing to be movably connected to shell #14 or Liang #101 is movably connected to shell #2).
Regarding Claim 3, Liang as modified teaches pump motor is arranged on a lower portion of the pump cartridge (Liang Fig. 2 #17).
Regarding Claim 5, Liang as modified teaches the pump motor is in transmission connection with the pump blade through a pump motor shaft (Dieckmann Fig. 3 unnumbered shaft between #19 and #25).
Regarding Claim 6, Liang as modified teaches the water pump comprises a power supply (Liang Fig.4 #1032; Dieckmann Fig. 2 #20) and a control system (Liang Fig. 4 #103), the power supply is connected to the control system, the control system comprises a control mainboard (Liang Fig. 4 #1031) and an operation panel (Liang Fig. 4 #103), the operation panel is connected to the control mainboard, and the control mainboard is connected to the pump motor.
Regarding Claim 7, Liang as modified teaches wherein the surface of the top cover is provided with a bowl configured to hold water discharged from the water outlet (Liang Fig. 1 #3).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China Patent CN 217336936 to Liang et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,277,800 to Dieckmann et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0151782 to Himes et al.
Regarding Claim 4, Liang as modified teaches the pump housing comprises an inlet water filter screen (Dieckmann #34), but is silent on explicitly teaching the inlet water filter screen is arranged at a bottom of the pump housing and located below the pump blade. However, Himes teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to have the water inlet via a filter screen under the pump blade (Himes Fig. 6 #40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Liang with the teachings of Himes before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce vibration as taught by Himes (Himes paragraph [0150]). The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or merely an obvious engineering design choice involving the shifting the location of known parts performing the same intended function [In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 1023, 86 USPQ 70, 73 (CCPA 1950)] for optimal operation and/or size/configuration of the shell and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner maintains that applicant hasn’t patentably distinguished over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA M VALENTI whose telephone number is (571)272-6895. The examiner can normally be reached Available Monday and Tuesday only, eastern time.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 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.
/ANDREA M VALENTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
09 December 2025