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 § 112
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 1-4 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, applicant’s disclosure does not describe the actuator confirmed to substantially simultaneously open/close the doors.
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) 1-4, 9, and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staples US 20210204509 in view of Klein US 20150040832.
Regarding claim 1, Staples teaches an animal feeder that provides controlled feeding for an animal, the animal feeder comprising:
a wall arrangement defining a housing configured to store animal feed (2 figure 4),
the housing including:
a front wall with a front wall aperture defined by an aperture frame of the front wall (figure 9),
a rear wall with a rear wall aperture defined by an aperture frame of the rear wall, and wherein the rear wall aperture is in an opposed positional relationship to the front wall aperture (figure 2);
a front openable door pivotally coupled to the housing (4 figure 9) and overlying both the front wall aperture and the aperture frame of the front wall (figure 12);
a rear openable door pivotally coupled to the housing and overlying both the rear wall aperture and the aperture frame of the rear wall (figure 12);
wherein: (i) in the respective closed position, the respective openable door overlies both the respective wall aperture and the respective aperture frame of the respective wall to block water and debris from entering the storage housing through the respective wall aperture (figure 12 again), and
(ii) in the open position, the respective openable door is elevated above the respective wall aperture to expose the respective wall aperture to allow access to feed located within the storage housing (figure 11), while a lower end of the respective openable door extends outward of a lower outer edge of the respective wall aperture (figure 2);
but does not specify an actuator configured to substantially simultaneously pivotally move the front and rear openable doors between a respective closed position and a respective open position; a control system configured to control operation of the actuator in response to one or more predefined conditions.
Klein; however, does teach an actuator (19 figure 2A) configured to pivotally move an openable door between a closed position and an open position (paragraph 0033); a control system configured to control operation of the actuator in response to one or more predefined conditions (figure 5). 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 an automated control system, in order to enable open and closing of the doors from a remote distance, etc.; and providing duplicate functions to the rear door, in order to efficiently operate both doors; since providing duplicate functions to both doors would have been a mere duplication of parts that has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. 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 function of simultaneous operation of the doors within the actuator/control system, in order to meet design preferences of feeding quantities for particular types of animals; since broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, etc.
Regarding claim 2, the references teach the animal feeder of claim 1, wherein in the open position, the lower end of each respective openable door extends outward of the lower edge of the respective wall aperture to define a respective lateral overhang (as previously described); but does not specify a distance that is at least one inch.
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 accommodate design preferences; since it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not operate differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 3, the references teach the animal feeder of claim 2, wherein each lateral overhang distance that is 2-10 inches (see claim 2 rejection).
Regarding claim 4, the references teach the animal feeder of claim 2 wherein each lateral overhang distance that is 4-7 inches (see claim 2 rejection).
Regarding claim 9, the references teach the animal feeder of claim 1, wherein Staples further teaches the housing further includes a first end wall and a second end wall that interconnect the front and rear walls of the housing (figure 9).
Regarding claim 12, the references teach the animal feeder of claim 1, wherein Staples further teaches the housing further includes a top wall residing between the front wall and the rear wall, wherein the front openable door is pivotally coupled to a front segment of the top wall and the rear openable door is pivotally coupled to a rear segment of the top wall (best represented in figures 2 and 7).
Regarding claim 13, the references teach the animal feeder of claim 12, wherein Staples further teaches the front openable door is pivotally coupled to the front segment of the top wall by a first hinge that extends along said front segment, and wherein the rear openable door is pivotally coupled to a rear segment of the top wall by a second hinge that extends along said rear segment of the top wall (seen throughout the figures).
Regarding claim 14, the references teach the animal feeder of claim 13, wherein Staples further teaches the first hinge and the second hinge are arranged in a substantially parallel relationship on the top wall (seen throughout the figures).
Regarding claim 15, the references teach the animal feeder of claim 13, wherein Staples further teaches the first hinge and the second hinge extend at least substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the top wall (seen throughout the figures).
Regarding claim 16, the references teach the animal feeder of claim 12, wherein Staples further teaches in the open position, a free, outer end of the front openable door and a free, outer end of the rear openable door are elevated above the top wall of the housing (figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, the references teach the animal feeder of claim 16, wherein Staples further teaches the free, outer end of the front openable door and the free, outer end of the rear openable door reside at the same height above the top wall of the housing (figure 2).
Regarding claim 18, the references teach the animal feeder of claim 12, wherein Staples further teaches at least one channel being configured to drain water (paragraph 0149); but does not specify the channel on the top wall. 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 channels at various locations; in order to efficiently channel water away; since shifting the position of the channels would not have modified the operation of the device in an unknown manner, etc.
Regarding claim 19, the references teach the animal feeder of claim 12, wherein Staples further teaches further comprising a flashing covering at least one of a first space between the front openable door and the top wall of the housing and a second space between the rear openable door and the top wall of the housing (24 figure 4); but does not specify waterproof. However, waterproof material is well known in general. 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 material, in order to prolong the system; since 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 20, the references teach the animal feeder of claim 1, wherein Staples further teaches an outer surface of the housing has an exterior surface topography that is textured with an arrangement of raised segments and recessed segments (such raised and recessed segments seen in at least figures 8-9).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staples and Klein in view of Freeman US 20220104455.
Regarding claim 10, the references teach the animal feeder of claim 9, but do not specify wherein first end wall and the second end wall have an upper portion with substantially circular periphery.
Freeman; however, does teach such a shape (figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to provide such a shape, in order to meet design preferences; since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the housing of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, because 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.
Regarding claim 11, the references teach the animal feeder of claim 10, wherein Freeman further teaches first end wall and the second end wall have a lower portion with a generally trapezoidal shape adjacent to the substantially circular shape of the upper portion (figure 2); but does not specify extending substantially tangentially. 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 shape, in order to meet design preferences for various heights of animals it would be desirable to feed; 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant states that Staples teaches away from the concepts of Klein but does not describe how or why. A programmable actuator, such as Klein’s, also provides control of the access to the feed.
Conclusion
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 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