Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 2-2-26 and this office action is a final rejection.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Terminal Disclaimer
2. The terminal disclaimer filed on 2-2-26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 11,582,947 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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) 1-2 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8,361,686 to Spiegel in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,388,737 to Wenzel.
Referring to claim 1, Spiegel discloses a cattle/animal water tank comprising, a pair of drinking chambers each having an open top – see at 23-29 in figures 1-2, the drinking chambers sharing a common dividing wall – see at 15-19 in figures 1-2, an opening – at 31, in the wall for fluid communication between the drinking chambers – see figures 1-2, a water inlet to supply water to the drinking chambers – see open top and/or the chamber and/or the opening – at 31 for items 21 and 13 as seen in figures 1-2 where water can only be added through the open top portions of the device. Spiegel does not disclose a plug removably inserted into the opening to block the fluid communication. Wenzel does disclose a plug – at 82a-82d and 92a-92d, removably inserted into the opening – at 80a-80d and 90a-90d, to block the fluid communication – see figure 4 and column 4 lines 16-40. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Spiegel and add the plug(s) removably inserted into the opening(s) in the dividing wall as disclosed by Wenzel, so as to yield the predictable result of controlling fluid/liquid flow in the device as desired. Spiegel as modified by Wenzel further discloses water is provided to both of the drinking chambers – at 23-29 of Spiegel, when the opening – at 31 of Spiegel, is unplugged – see figures 1-2 of Spiegel, and is provided to only one of the chambers – at 23-29 of Spiegel, when the opening – at 31 of Spiegel, is plugged – via the plug – at 82a-82d and 92a-92d of Wenzel in that the when the opening – at 31 between chambers 23 and 25 of Spiegel is plugged via the plug of Wenzel, water is only provided to the chamber – at 23 as seen in figures 1-2 of Spiegel. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Spiegel and add the plug(s) removably inserted into the opening(s) in the dividing wall as disclosed by Wenzel, so as to yield the predictable result of controlling fluid/liquid flow in the device as desired.
Referring to claim 2, Spiegel as modified by Wenzel further discloses the tank has a floor – see bottom of tank in figure 2 of Spiegel, and the opening – at 31, is adjacent the floor – see figure 2 of Spiegel.
Referring to claim 4, Spiegel as modified by Wenzel further discloses the plug – at 82a-82d and 92a-92d, allows one of the drinking chambers to be filled by the water inlet and the other of the drinking chambers to be closed from the water inlet when the plug is inserted into the opening – see figures 1-2 of Spiegel and figure 4 of Wenzel. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Spiegel and add the plug(s) removably inserted into the opening(s) in the dividing wall as disclosed by Wenzel, so as to yield the predictable result of controlling fluid/liquid flow in the device as desired.
Referring to claim 5, Spiegel as modified by Wenzel further discloses the water inlet – at 21 of Spiegel, fills both drinking chambers – at 23-29, when the plug – at 82a-82d and 92d, is removed and fills only one of the drinking chambers – at 23 of Spiegel, when the plug – at 82a-82d and 92a-92d of Wenzel, is inserted – see figures 1-2 of Spiegel and figure 4 of Wenzel. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Spiegel and add the plug(s) removably inserted into the opening(s) in the dividing wall as disclosed by Wenzel, so as to yield the predictable result of controlling fluid/liquid flow in the device as desired.
Referring to claim 6, Spiegel as modified by Wenzel further discloses the water inlet – at 21 and associated item 31, communicates only with the first drinking chamber – at 23 – see figures 1-2 of Spiegel.
Referring to claim 7, Spiegel as modified by Wenzel further discloses the second drinking chamber – at 25, receives water from the first drinking chamber – at 23, via the opening – at 31, in the dividing wall – see figures 1-2 of Spiegel.
Referring to claim 8, Spiegel as modified by Wenzel further discloses the plug – at 82a-82d and 92a-92d, seals the second drinking chamber from water – see figures 1-2 of Spiegel and figure 4 of Wenzel. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Spiegel and add the plug(s) removably inserted into the opening(s) in the dividing wall as disclosed by Wenzel, so as to yield the predictable result of controlling fluid/liquid flow in the device as desired.
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiegel as modified by Wenzel as applied to claims 2 or 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,452,683 to Poffenroth.
Referring to claims 3 and 9, Spiegel as modified by Wenzel does not disclose a heater beneath the floor to heat water in the drinking chambers. Poffenroth does disclose a heater – at 17,21,35-40, beneath the floor – see figure 2, to heat water in the drinking chamber(s) – at 11,13,14 – see figure 2. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Spiegel as modified by Wenzel and add the heater beneath the floor of the drinking chamber(s) as disclosed by Poffenroth, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the device keep the liquid from freezing during use.
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiegel in view of Wenzel and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,553,636 to Hoeptner et al.
Referring to claim 15, Spiegel discloses a cattle/animal water trough comprising, a tank with a floor and sidewalls – see at 10 in figures 1-2, first and second drinking chambers – at 21-29, divided by a wall – at 13-19, extending between the sidewalls – see figures 1-2, and the wall – at 13-19, having a hole – at 31, near the floor – see figure 2, the hole – at 31, supplying water from the first drinking chamber – at 21, to the second drinking chamber(s) – at 23-29 – see figures 1-2. Spiegel does not disclose a water supply line to supply water to the first drinking chamber and a plug to close the hole to preclude water from flowing into the second drinking chamber. Hoeptner et al. does disclose a water supply line – at 16, to supply water to the first drinking chamber – at 11– see figure 1 and column 1 lines 55-67. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Spiegel and add the water supply line of Hoeptner et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the tank has a sufficient quantity of water during use. Wenzel discloses disclose a plug – at 82a-82d and 92a-92d, removably inserted into the opening – at 80a-80d and 90a-90d, to block/preclude water from flowing into the second chamber – see figure 4 and column 4 lines 16-40. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Spiegel and add the plug(s) removably inserted into the opening(s) in the dividing wall as disclosed by Wenzel, so as to yield the predictable result of controlling fluid/liquid flow in the device as desired. Spiegel as modified by Wenzel and Hoeptner further discloses the second drinking chamber – at 23 of Spiegel, remains empty of water – see figures 1-2 of Spiegel in that when the plug – at 82a-82d and 92a-92d of Wenzel is placed into the opening – at 31 between chambers 21 and 23 of Spiegel, the chamber – at 23 remains empty of water when the plug is placed into the opening – at 31 between the chambers – at 21 and 23 as seen in figure 1-2 of Spiegel. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Spiegel as modified by Wenzel and Hoeptner and add the plug(s) removably inserted into the opening(s) in the dividing wall as disclosed by Wenzel, so as to yield the predictable result of controlling fluid/liquid flow in the device as desired.
Referring to claim 17, Spiegel as modified by Wenzel and Hoeptner et al. further discloses the first and second drinking chambers – at 21 and 23, have an upper opening to allow cattle to drink from the respective drinking chambers – see open top openings in figures 1-2 of Spiegel.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiegel as modified by Wenzel and Hoeptner et al. as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Poffenroth.
Referring to claim 16, Spiegel as modified by Wenzel and Hoeptner et al. does not disclose a heater beneath the floor to heat water in the drinking chambers. Poffenroth does disclose a heater – at 17,21,35-40, beneath the floor – see figure 2, to heat water in the drinking chamber(s) – at 11,13,14 – see figure 2. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Spiegel as modified by Wenzel and Hoeptner et al. and add the heater beneath the floor of the drinking chamber(s) as disclosed by Poffenroth, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the device keep the liquid from freezing during use.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s terminal disclaimer filed 2-2-26 obviates the non-statutory double patenting rejections detailed in the last office action dated 11-4-25.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 1 and 15, the Spiegel reference US 8361686 as modified by the Wenzel reference US 4388737 discloses the newly added claim limitations of applicant’s claim amendments dated 2-2-26 as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action. Further, Spiegel discloses a single opening – at 31 between the chambers – at 21-29 as seen in figures 1-2 and using the plug(s) – at 82a-82d and 92a-92d of Wenzel in the device of Spiegel would keep the water from flowing into the chambers of Spiegel downstream from the plug as seen in figures 1-2 of Wenzel and therefore Wenzel disclosing that not all of the openings – at 80a-80d and 90a-90d being plugged at the same time does not teach away from or render inoperable the device with multiple chambers of Spiegel. Further, applicant discussed column 2 lines 5-11 and column 3 lines 43-54 of Spiegel and these remarks/arguments are not persuasive in that using a plug in any of the openings – at 31 of Spiegel would still allow for the water levels to equalize in each of the chambers – at 21-27 upstream from the plugged opening – at 31, in that the openings – at 31 between the chambers – at 21-27 upstream of the plug would still allow for the water to fill each chamber as intended and the plugged wall would act as an outer wall of the device that does not have an opening. Further, applicant argues that the Wenzel reference is non-analogous art and these remarks/arguments are not persuasive in that the device of Wenzel is at least reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved of using plugs in walls/partitions to control the flow of liquid/water between chambers in a liquid filled container as seen in figures 1 and 3-4 and column 4 lines 16-40 of Wenzel detailing the use of plugs to control water flow in the device and therefore given the similar structure between the devices of Spiegel and Wenzel being a container with partitions forming chambers and the partitions having opening(s) for allowing a flow of liquid/water between the chambers and given the similar functions of allowing for and controlling liquid/water flow between adjacent chambers of the device, the device of Wenzel is considered analogous art and the combination of these references renders the claims obvious as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action.
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643