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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 01/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant argues The specification does not present the pump-based and solenoid-based modules as freestanding inventions divorced from the system. Rather, they are disclosed as interchangeable embodiments performing the same system-level function within the same disclosed architecture. As such, examination of claims 1-20 would naturally proceed through: the same specification, the same figures, the same functional objectives, and substantially overlapping search logic.
The examiner notes that although the modules may not be divorced from the system in the specification, claims 19-20 as recited are divorced from the system. As claims 19-20 are directed to the modules themselves, while being configured to be connected to a water source, a complete search would encompass the modules separate from the system of claim 1. Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues MPEP § 808.02 requires an explanation of why separate classification would necessitate materially different searches. No such explanation is provided here.
As stated in the restriction requirement, Claim 19 is drawn to a pump-based fresh water module with separate utility such as supplying a regulated portable fresh water source. Claim 20 was also discussed as being drawn to a solenoid based fresh water module that has separate utility such as controlling the timing of a water supply with a solenoid. The separate classifications were provided based on this discussion. As the applicant has not addressed this explanation, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues the asserted separate utilities-e.g., supplying water or controlling timing-are not independent commercial utilities in the sense relevant to restriction practice. Rather, they are functional roles within a single disclosed system, not standalone inventions pursued independently of that system.
As stated above, claims 19-20 are drawn to stand-alone systems independent of the structure of claim 1. Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues the subcombinations are disclosed only for use in the combination, the claims overlap structurally and functionally at the system level, and the Office has not articulated a concrete search burden, restriction is premature.
As the arguments are directed to the comments above, the arguments are considered non-persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-18 are allowable. The restriction requirement between species A and B, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 08/25/2025, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement partially withdrawn. Claim 17, directed to Species B is no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. However, claim 19-20, directed to Inventions II and III are withdrawn from consideration because they do not require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1 line 10, the phrase “configured as connected” is a grammatical error.
Regarding claim 1 lines 11-12, the phrase “configured as connected” is a grammatical error.
Regarding claim 1 line 19, the phrase “in the water in the water” is a typographical error.
Regarding claim 5 line 1, the phrase “claim 3 4” is a typographical error.
Regarding claim 9 line 1, the phrase “claim 6 8” is a typographical error.
Regarding claim 10 line 1, the phrase “claim 6 8” is a typographical error.
Regarding claim 11 line 1, the phrase “claim 6B 10” is a typographical error.
Regarding claim 12 line 1, the phrase “claim 6B 11” is a typographical error.
Regarding claim 13 line 3, the phrase “any of the following a plurality” is a grammatical error.
Regarding claim 15 line 1, the phrase “claim 8 14” is a typographical error.
Regarding claim 16 line 1, the phrase “claim 8A 15” is a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 9-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 5, 9-12, and 15-16, the apparent typographical errors in the claim dependency creates confusion as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “any of the following…conditions”, while only one condition is listed. This creates confusion as to the other conditions encompassed by the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase within the parenthesis renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) within the parenthesis are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art of record is to Mai which teaches an automatic pet watering system, comprising: a base (26) housing configured to support various components of the automatic pet watering system (fig. 5); a water bowl (22) configured to fit into the base housing (at lip (44)) and configured to have a circular shape from a top view (fig. 2), a diameter of the circular shape decreasing so as to form a concave circular bowl surface for holding water (fig. 3), the concave circular bowl surface culminating in a circular opening forming a tube-shaped portion (76) at a bottom of the main bowl (fig. 3), the concave circular bowl surface configured with a boss (34) and opening (96) (fig. 5) near an upper edge of the concave circular bowl surface (nearer to upper edge than to pump (28)) (fig. 3), the tube-shaped portion having a second opening (outlet (82)) near a bottom edge of the tube-shaped portion (fig. 3); a water pump (28) configured for recirculating the water held in the main bowl (para [0034]), wherein the water pump is configured with a pump outlet tube (92) having a distal end that projects through the opening of the boss at the upper edge of the concave circular bowl surface (fig. 4) and is connected to a pump inlet tube (basin supply line) (para [0047]); and a spray nozzle (94) affixed to a distal end of the pump outlet tube and projecting through the boss at the upper edge of the concave circular bowl surface (fig. 4), the spray nozzle configured to project water from the pump outlet tube laterally from the pump outlet tube at an angle and orientation predetermined to cause a vortex effect in the water bowl when the water pump is operating (para [0054]).
Mai fails to disclose, nor would it have been obvious to modify Mai to include the tube-shaped portion with and a first opening; the pump inlet tube having a distal end affixed to the first opening at the bottom edge of the tube-shaped portion; and a bowl control unit configured to periodically operate the water pump on a predetermined schedule.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/C.D.H./
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647