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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on February 28, 2026. Claims 1, 9, 15, 18-19 have been amended and are hereby entered. Claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 4, 17, and 20 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-16, 18-19, and 21-23 are currently pending and have been examined. This action is made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation of claim 15 wherein “the slow-feed bowl does not contact the bucket” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The Examiner notes that the drawings show wherein the slow-feed bowl indirectly contacts the bucket. The drawings do not, however, show wherein the slow-feed bowl directly contacts the bucket. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 23, line 1, Applicant is suggested to amend the phrase “of claim 15, the adapter” to --of claim 15, wherein the adapter-- in order to utilize more consistent language throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harper et al. (US 2021/0137070 A1), hereinafter Harper.
Regarding claim 1, Harper discloses an animal feeding apparatus (feeder 10) comprising:
a bowl (bowl 40) comprising a first locking structure (rim 70); and
an annular, load-bearing adapter (sleeve 46) defining a central opening (first opening 56, second opening 60) and comprising a second locking structure (recess 66) configured to couple to the first locking structure (fig. 7; para [0028]), the adapter further comprising a third locking structure (downwardly extending extension 72) configured to couple to a container1 (fig. 7; para [0028], extension 72 is capable of coupling to a container);
wherein the bowl is configured to be seated and axially supported in the central opening of the adapter when the first locking structure is coupled to the second locking structure (fig. 5 and 7), such that the bowl is supported by the adapter independently of the container (fig. 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 2, Harper discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the container is a bucket (fig. 7; para [0028], extension 72 of sleeve 46 is capable of coupling to a bucket).
Regarding claim 3, Harper discloses the apparatus of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the bucket is a 5-gallon bucket (fig. 7; para [0028], extension 72 of sleeve 46 is capable of coupling to a 5-gallon bucket).
Regarding claim 7, Harper discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the third locking structure (downwardly extending extension 72) forms a snap fit mechanism (para [0028], “extension 72 snaps radially inwardly”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al. (US 2021/0137070 A1), hereinafter Harper, in view of Huether et al. (US 7,938,083 B1), hereinafter Huether.
Regarding claim 5, Harper discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the first locking structure and the second locking structure form an interlocking twist fit mechanism.
However, Huether is in the field of animal feeding apparatuses (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the first locking structure (securing portions 72) and the second locking structure (channels 45, slots 46) form an interlocking twist fit mechanism (col 6, line 63-col 7, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the animal feeding apparatus with bowl and adapter of Harper to incorporate the teaching of a twist fit mechanism as taught by Huether with a reasonable expectation of success to more securely attach the bowl and the adapter to one another (col 3, lines 11-15), thereby preventing accidental separation of the bowl from the apparatus.
Regarding claim 6, Harper as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 5, and further discloses wherein the first locking structure (from Huether, securing portions 72) comprises a tab (from Huether, fig. 2) and the second locking structure (from Huether, channels 45, slots 46) comprises a slot (from Huether, slots 46) configured to receive the tab (from Huether, fig. 2-5).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al. (US 2021/0137070 A1), hereinafter Harper, in view of Stone (US 2023/0180711 A1), hereinafter Stone.
Regarding claim 8, Harper discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the bowl is a slow-feed bowl.
However, Stone is in the field of animal feeding apparatuses (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the bowl (bowl 10) is a slow-feed bowl (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the animal feeding apparatus with bowl of Harper to have made the bowl a slow-feed bowl as taught by Stone with a reasonable expectation of success to limit rate of food intake by the pet, thereby improving pet health (para [0006]-[0009]).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al. (US 2021/0137070 A1), hereinafter Harper, in view of Huether et al. (US 7,938,083 B1), hereinafter Huether.
Regarding claim 9, Harper discloses an animal feeding apparatus (feeder 10) comprising:
an annular, load-bearing adapter (sleeve 46) defining a central opening (first opening 56, second opening 60) and comprising a plurality of outer tabs (downwardly extending extension 72 and secondary downwardly extending surface, see annotated fig. 1 below) disposed on a circumference of the adapter (fig. 7);
a bowl (bowl 40);
wherein the bowl is seated in the central opening of the adapter and axially supported by the adapter (fig. 5-7); and
wherein the outer tabs of the adapter are configured to couple to a bucket2 (fig. 7; para [0028], extension 72 and secondary downwardly extending surface are capable of coupling to a bucket).
Harper does not appear to specifically disclose:
the adapter comprising a plurality of slots disposed on an inner circumference of the adapter;
the bowl comprising a plurality of tabs disposed on a circumference of the bowl;
wherein the plurality of tabs of the bowl are configured to interlock with the slots of the adapter to couple the adapter and the bowl such that the bowl is seated in the central opening of the adapter and axially supported by the adapter.
However, Huether is in the field of animal feeding apparatuses (title; abstract) and teaches:
the adapter (cover 40) comprising a plurality of slots (channels 45, slots 46) disposed on an inner circumference of the adapter (fig. 2, channels 45 and slots 46 are located on an inner circumference of upper openings 44 of cover unit 40);
the bowl (container 70) comprising a plurality of tabs (securing portions 72) disposed on a circumference of the bowl (fig. 2);
wherein the plurality of tabs of the bowl are configured to interlock with the slots of the adapter to couple the adapter and the bowl such that the bowl is seated in the central opening of the adapter and axially supported by the adapter (fig. 4-5; col 6, line 63-col 7, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the animal feeding apparatus with bowl and adapter of Harper to incorporate the plurality of slots and plurality of tabs as taught by Huether with a reasonable expectation of success to more securely attach the bowl and the adapter to one another (col 3, lines 11-15), thereby preventing accidental separation of the bowl from the apparatus.
PNG
media_image1.png
368
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1. Harper Fig. 7, Focus View (Examiner-Annotated)
Regarding claim 10, Harper as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the outer tabs (from Harper, downwardly extending extension 72 and secondary downwardly extending surface) of the adapter (from Harper, sleeve 46) are configured to couple to a 5-gallon bucket (fig. 7, extension 72 and secondary downwardly extending surface are capable of coupling to a 5-gallon bucket).
Regarding claim 11, Harper as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the outer tabs (from Harper, downwardly extending extension 72 and secondary downwardly extending surface) are configured to couple with the bucket as a snap fit (from Harper, fig. 7; para [0028], “extension 72 snaps radially inwardly”).
Regarding claim 12, Harper as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the plurality of tabs (from Huether, securing portions 72) of the bowl (from Huether, container 70) are configured to interlock with the plurality of slots (from Huether, channels 45, slots 46) of the adapter (from Huether, cover unit 40) to couple the adapter and the bowl by rotating the bowl relative to the adapter (from Huether, fig. 4-5; col 6, line 63-col 7, line 2).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Harper et al. (US 2021/0137070 A1), hereinafter Harper, in view of Huether et al. (US 7,938,083 B1), hereinafter Huether, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Reissig (EP 2047742 A2), hereinafter Reissig.
Regarding claim 13, Harper as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 12, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the bowl further comprises protrusions for applying a twisting force.
However, Reissig in in the field of animal feeding apparatuses (title) and teaches wherein the bowl (disposable portion body 20) further comprises a protrusion (latching nose 28’) for applying a twisting force (fig. 1 and 7-8).
Harper as modified does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the protrusion is a plurality of protrusions. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included multiple protrusions, with the motivation of providing a greater selection of protrusions for gripping, thereby increasing flexibility of use of the apparatus, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the animal feeding apparatus with bowl of Harper as modified to incorporate the protrusion of Reissig with a reasonable expectation of success to allow a user to more easily handle, grip, and operate the apparatus.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Harper et al. (US 2021/0137070 A1), hereinafter Harper, in view of Huether et al. (US 7,938,083 B1), hereinafter Huether, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Stone (US 2023/0180711 A1), hereinafter Stone.
Regarding claim 14, Harper as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 9, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the bowl is a slow-feed bowl.
However, Stone is in the field of animal feeding apparatuses (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the bowl (bowl 10) is a slow-feed bowl (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the animal feeding apparatus with bowl of Harper as modified to have made the bowl a slow-feed bowl as taught by Stone with a reasonable expectation of success to limit rate of food intake by the pet, thereby improving pet health (para [0006]-[0009]).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al. (US 2021/0137070 A1), hereinafter Harper, in view of Ebert (US 2008/0006212 A1), hereinafter Ebert, and Stone (US 2023/0180711 A1), hereinafter Stone.
Regarding claim 15, Harper discloses an animal feeding system (feeder 10) comprising:
a container (body 12) having a rim (upwardly extending protrusion 34);
an annular, load-bearing adapter (sleeve 46) having an outer circumference coupled to the rim (fig. 5-7); and
a bowl (bowl 40) seated inside the rim of the bucket using the annular adapter (fig. 5 and 7), where the annular adapter has an inner circumference coupled to the bowl and axially supporting the bowl such that the bowl does not contact the bucket (fig. 5 and 7, broadly interpreted, as bowl 40 does not directly contact the bucket).
Harper does not appear to specifically disclose:
wherein the container is a bucket;
wherein the bowl is a slow-feed bowl.
However, Ebert is in the field of animal feeding systems (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the container (bucket or pail 20) is a bucket (fig. 3; para [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the animal feeding system with container of Harper to have made the container a bucket as taught by Ebert with a reasonable expectation of success to make the animal feeding system and its container more easily transportable (abstract; para [0001]-[0003]).
Additionally, Stone is in the field of animal feeding systems (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the bowl (bowl 10) is a slow-feed bowl (fig. 1; abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the animal feeding system with bowl
of Harper to have made the bowl a slow-feed bowl as taught by Stone
with a reasonable expectation of success to limit rate of food intake by the pet, thereby
improving pet health (para [0006]-[0009]).
Regarding claim 16, Harper as modified discloses the system of claim 15, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the bucket is a 5-gallon bucket.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the bucket a 5-gallon bucket, with the motivation of holding and storing a certain desired quantity, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, no criticality appears to be disclosed in the instant application regarding the size of the bucket (Specification, para [0037]).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Harper et al. (US 2021/0137070 A1), hereinafter Harper, in view of Ebert (US 2008/0006212 A1), hereinafter Ebert, and Stone (US 2023/0180711 A1), hereinafter Stone, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Huether et al. (US 7,938,083 B1), hereinafter Huether.
Regarding claim 18, Harper as modified discloses the system of claim 15, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the bowl is coupled to the adapter using an interlocking twist fit.
However, Huether is in the field of animal feeding apparatuses (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the bowl (container 70) is coupled to the adapter (cover unit 40) using an interlocking twist fit (col 6, line 63-col 7, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the animal feeding system with bowl and adapter of Harper as modified to incorporate the teaching of an interlocking twist fit as taught by Huether with a reasonable expectation of success to more securely attach the bowl and the adapter to one another (col 3, lines 11-15), thereby preventing accidental separation of the bowl from the apparatus.
Regarding claim 19, Harper as modified discloses the system of claim 18, and further discloses wherein the bowl (from Huether, container 70) comprises a plurality of tabs (from Huether, securing portions 72) disposed on a circumference of the bowl (from Huether, fig. 2) and the adapter (from Huether, cover unit 40) comprises a plurality of slots (from Huether, channels 45, slots 46) disposed on the inner circumference of the adapter (from Huether, fig. 2, channels 45 and slots 46 are located on an inner circumference of upper openings 44 of cover unit 40).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al. (US 2021/0137070 A1), hereinafter Harper, in view of Grinnell et al. (US 2018/0014504 A1), hereinafter Grinnell.
Regarding claim 21, Harper discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the adapter (sleeve 46) is configured to form an airtight seal with the container (fig. 7, via first sealing device 50).
Harper does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the adapter is configured to form an airtight seal with the bowl.
However, Grinnell is in the field of animal feeding apparatuses (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the adapter (housing insert 134) is configured to form an airtight seal with the bowl (dish 158; fig. 11; para [0056], via lower dish gaskets 152).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the animal feeding apparatus with adapter and bowl of Harper to incorporate the teaching of an airtight seal between the adapter and the bowl as taught by Grinnell with a reasonable expectation of success to better insulate and regulate the temperature of the bowl and its contents.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Harper et al. (US 2021/0137070 A1), hereinafter Harper, in view of Huether et al. (US 7,938,083 B1), hereinafter Huether, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Grinnell et al. (US 2018/0014504 A1), hereinafter Grinnell.
Regarding claim 22, Harper as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the adapter (sleeve 46) is configured to form an airtight seal with the bucket (fig. 7, via first sealing device 50) .
Harper as modified does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the adapter is configured to form an airtight seal with the bowl.
However, Grinnell is in the field of animal feeding apparatuses (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the adapter (housing insert 134) is configured to form an airtight seal with the bowl (dish 158; fig. 11; para [0056], via lower dish gaskets 152).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the animal feeding apparatus with adapter and bowl of Harper as modified to incorporate the teaching of an airtight seal between the adapter and the bowl as taught by Grinnell with a reasonable expectation of success to better insulate and regulate the temperature of the bowl and its contents.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Harper et al. (US 2021/0137070 A1), hereinafter Harper, in view of Ebert (US 2008/0006212 A1), hereinafter Ebert, and Stone (US 2023/0180711 A1), hereinafter Stone, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Grinnell et al. (US 2018/0014504 A1), hereinafter Grinnell.
Regarding claim 23, Harper as modified discloses the system of claim 15, and further discloses the adapter (sleeve 46) forms an airtight seal with the bucket (body 12, fig. 7, via first sealing device 50).
Harper as modified does not appear to specifically disclose the adapter forms an airtight seal with the slow-feed bowl.
However, Grinnell is in the field of animal feeding apparatus (title; abstract) and teaches the adapter (housing insert 134) forms an airtight seal with the slow-feed bowl (dish 158; fig. 11; para [0056], via lower dish gaskets 152).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the animal feeding system with adapter and slow-feed bowl of Harper as modified to incorporate the teaching of an airtight seal between the adapter and the slow-feed bowl with a reasonable expectation of success to better insulate and regulate the temperature of the bowl and its contents.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 1-4 of 4), filed February 28, 2026, regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1, 9, and 15 under §103 have been fully considered, but they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner notes that no specific arguments were made regarding the prior art of Harper et al. (US 2021/0137070 A1).
Specifically, Applicant argues that Lorenzana et al. (US 2008/0216754 A1) does not teach “an annular adapter having a central opening into which a bowl is seated and axially supported” (Remarks, pages 2-3 of 4). However, in the instant rejection, Harper et al. (US 2021/0137070 A1) has been substituted for Lorenzana for teaching the limitation in question, thereby rendering Applicant’s arguments against Lorenzana moot.
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 ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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, Kimberly Berona, can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
1 The Examiner notes that the “container” is not positively claimed; therefore, limitations referring to the “container” must merely be capable of being achieved by the prior art in order for the claim to be met.
2 The Examiner notes that the “bucket” is not positively claimed; therefore, limitations referring to the “bucket” must merely be capable of being achieved by the prior art in order for the claim to be met.
Prosecution Insights