DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 and 20-30 remain pending. Claims 18-19 remain cancelled. Claims 1 and 17 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 7, 10-11, 13-17, 22-24, and 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbs (US 2020/0305387 A1) in view of Bailey et al. ("Automating Monitoring of Cat Feeding Behaviour", 2014 IEEE Sensors Applications Symposium (SAS), February 18, 2014, 6 Pages, XP32586872A), cited on the 08/11/2025 IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Gibbs teaches a smart pet bowl (Fig. 1, “food bowl”, 101) to monitor pet feeding behavior (Described as monitoring feeding behavior: “FIG. 1 is an exemplary diagram showing a food portion management system comprising a communication network and measuring food bowl. More specifically, a food bowl 101 provides for measuring the weight of dry or wet food material by use of an integral scale.”, Para. [0139]), comprising: a pet bowl (Fig. 1, “food bowl”, 101) to i) carry pet food or water or ii) carry a bowl insert to carry pet food or water (“a food bowl 101 provides for measuring the weight of dry or wet food material by use of an integral scale.”, Para. [0139]; thus, food is inserted into the bowl 101 and carried by the bowl 101; further, see Fig. 70, “insert” 7005 and Para. [0586]); a load sensor associated with the pet bowl that is sensitive to load changes of pet food or water carried within the pet bowl (Described as having an integral scale: “a food bowl 101 provides for measuring the weight of dry or wet food material by use of an integral scale.”, Para. [0139]), wherein the load sensor has a sensitivity of +/-50 grams or less (Implicitly disclosed as having a measurement resolution or sensitivity of 0.1g: “Now then, the owner begins to fill the empty food bowl 408 with the selected type and brand of food. As the bowl scale senses an increase in pressure from the food, it communicates the measurement to the program 405 wherein the engine 405 compares the actual food measurement against the desired 126.4 gm measurement as just described.”, Para. [0159]) and load data collectable therefrom is at a sample rate from 10 to 150 samples per second in sequential time increments from about 0.01 second to 5 seconds (Disclosed as collecting and using real time data of the food weight: “In another instance, a food bowl containing a scale and an electronic circuit provides for measuring the weight of food entered into the bowl, and in real time communicating the measurement to a computer or other wireless device on the network. The computer or device, having been previously installed with software to compare a desired weight with actual weight of food entered into a bowl, provides for a means not shown to notify the owner that the desired measure of food has been entered into the food bowl.”, Para. [0141], see Paras. [0140]-[0145]); a data communicator to communicate the load data over a computer network (“in real time communicating the measurement to a computer or other wireless device on the network”, Para. [0141]); a processor (Fig. 5, “processors” 503 & 502; “the order presented, or may not necessarily need to be performed at all, according to some embodiments of the invention. These computer-executable program instructions may be loaded onto a general-purpose computer, a special-purpose computer, a processor, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a particular machine, such that the instructions that execute on the computer, processor, or other programmable data processing apparatus create means for implementing one or more functions specified in the flow diagram block or blocks.”, Para. [0762]); and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (“These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer-readable memory produce an article of manufacture including instruction means that implement one or more functions specified in the flow diagram block or blocks.”, Para. [0762]), communicates the load data over the computer network (“a software application installed upon the “Cloud” 104, computer 103 or other wireless device on the network provides for a specified weight of food to be communicated to the food bowl.”, Para. [0140]); identify a feeding behavior occurring by analyzing patterns of load-change fluctuations in the load data indicative of pet interaction with the contents of the pet bowl (Fig. 16; “FIG. 16 is an exemplary diagram showing weight fluctuations relative to unchanged food energy portions, and correlating to reduced food portions…”, Paras. [0271]-[0284] further describes analyzing weight fluctuations).
Gibbs further discloses there is a sample rate in sequential time increments (Figs. 27-30 discloses the use of a “clock” 3002 and “time signature” 3004 and further shows data collected on a time or duration scale). Gibbs is silent on load data collectable therefrom is at a sample rate from 10 to 150 samples per second in sequential time increments from about 0.01 second to 5 seconds.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Gibbs to further include load data collectable therefrom is at a sample rate from 10 to 150 samples per second in sequential time increments from about 0.01 second to 5 seconds, with a reasonable expectation for success, since Gibbs discloses the advantage of “prevent[ing] the system from double-counting water volume by adding the components of metered water consumed, and inferred water consumed during the presence of the drinking signature. After the signature is set up, the collar will only record the drinking signature when not in the immediate presence of a metered water source”, Para. [0380], and because the time resolution of the weight data collection are not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, while limiting time resolution could provide benefits to the analysis of the data by subdividing it into easier to compute segments of sequential time increments and preventing double counting, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, such as the real time data collection of Gibbs, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, applicant’s disclosure does not provide an unexpected result of subdivided data collection instead of the real time data collecting taught by Gibbs.
Gibbs is silent on a memory for storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive the load data from the data communicator; and identify a feeding behavior occurring within one or more of the time increments based on the pet interacting with the pet bowl or the contents of the pet bowl.
However, in an analogous pet feeding and monitoring art, Bailey teaches a memory for storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive the load data from the data communicator; and identify a feeding behavior occurring within one or more of the time increments based on the pet interacting with the pet bowl or the contents of the pet bowl (See Fig. 5; “The microcontroller makes weight readings about every 5 seconds…Image capture, motion detection, and recording were implemented using Labview running under Windows on a host computer. A single computer (Intel Core i5 CPU at 2.67 GHz)”, p. 300, col. 2; “The system can readily monitor multiple cages, and record detailed interaction of the cats with their food…The weight records both the quantity of food consumed, and timing of each meal”, p. 304, Col. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Gibbs to further include a memory for storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive the load data from the data communicator; and identify a feeding behavior occurring within one or more of the time increments based on the pet interacting with the pet bowl or the contents of the pet bowl, as taught by Bailey, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide “new information that was unattainable before. The system will assist the Centre in understanding some of the reasons behind the cat’s rejections and acceptance of certain food products, thus providing more feedback to the pet food manufacturer in relation to their products.”, Bailey, p. 304, Col. 1, V. Conclusion.
Regarding claim 2, Gibbs teaches wherein the smart pet bowl includes a bowl support which carries the load sensor and a bowl insert to carry the pet food or water and which is configured to transfer loads from the bowl insert to the load sensor (“An insert 7005 comprising food consumption obstacles is shown positioned within the interior surface of the bowl, the insert therefore conforming to the interior food bowl geometry as previously described.”, Para. [0586]; “In the diagram, a food monitoring device 8000 measures the actual amount of food contained in a pet feeding bowl. The measurement may be conducted by sensors that measure weight, or that measure volume.”, Para. [0627]).
Regarding claim 3, Gibbs teaches wherein the smart pet bowl is a single integrated pet bowl configured to directly carried pet food or water, wherein the single integrated pet bowl also carries the load sensor at a location where animal interaction with the pet food generates load data (“FIG. 1 is an exemplary diagram showing a food portion management system comprising a communication network and measuring food bowl. More specifically, a food bowl 101 provides for measuring the weight of dry or wet food material by use of an integral scale. Within a network, the food bowl is in wired or wireless communication 102 with at least a smartphone 100, a wireless device or computer 103, one or more of which may be in communication with servers or databases within the network.”, Para. [0139]; “In another instance, a food bowl containing a scale and an electronic circuit provides for measuring the weight of food entered into the bowl, and in real time communicating the measurement to a computer or other wireless device on the network. The computer or device, having been previously installed with software to compare a desired weight with actual weight of food entered into a bowl, provides for a means not shown to notify the owner that the desired measure of food has been entered into the food bowl.”, Para. [0141]; “In the diagram, a food monitoring device 8000 measures the actual amount of food contained in a pet feeding bowl. The measurement may be conducted by sensors that measure weight, or that measure volume.”, Para. [0627]).
Regarding claim 4, Gibbs wherein the real time data collection are controlled onboard by the smart pet bowl (“In another instance, a food bowl containing a scale and an electronic circuit provides for measuring the weight of food entered into the bowl, and in real time communicating the measurement to a computer or other wireless device on the network. The computer or device, having been previously installed with software to compare a desired weight with actual weight of food entered into a bowl, provides for a means not shown to notify the owner that the desired measure of food has been entered into the food bowl.”, Para. [0141]; “FIG. 2 is an exemplary diagram showing a food portion management system comprising a communication network and measuring scale. More specifically, a scale 201 provides for measuring the weight of dry or wet food material entered into a food bowl 200 in physical communication with the scale. Within a network, the scale is in wired or wireless communication 102 with at least a smartphone 100, a wireless device or computer 103, one or more of which may be in communication with servers or databases 104 within the network, and operates in substantially the same manner as the just described food bowl.”, Para. [0143]).
Gibbs further discloses there is a sample rate in sequential time increments (Figs. 27-30 discloses the use of a “clock” 3002 and “time signature” 3004 and further shows data collected on a time or duration scale). Gibbs is silent on the sample rate, the sequential time increments, or both.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Gibbs to further include the sample rate, the sequential time increments, or both, with a reasonable expectation for success, since Gibbs discloses the advantage of “prevent[ing] the system from double-counting water volume by adding the components of metered water consumed, and inferred water consumed during the presence of the drinking signature. After the signature is set up, the collar will only record the drinking signature when not in the immediate presence of a metered water source”, Para. [0380], and because the time resolution of the weight data collection are not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, while limiting time resolution could provide benefits to the analysis of the data by subdividing it into easier to compute segments of sequential time increments, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, such as the real time data collection of Gibbs, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, applicant’s disclosure does not provide an unexpected result of subdivided data collection instead of the real time data collecting taught by Gibbs.
Regarding claim 7, Gibbs teaches wherein the smart pet bowl is capable of differentiating multiple pets in a multi-pet household (“FIG. 88 is an exemplary diagram illustrating multiple pets and multiple food types on a pet-monitoring network.”, Para. [0695]).
Regarding claim 10, Gibbs teaches wherein the sensitivity, sample rate, and sequential time increments are established at levels sufficient to identify a duration-based feeding behavior selected from touching the bowl, moving the bowl, nosing the food, pausing, eating, lapping, licking, or a combination thereof (“It is well known that while pet dogs are typically “meal fed”, that is, they typically consume their food upon presentation at their meal time, pet cats graze on their food throughout the day, rather than consuming the daily food portion in a single sitting. Therefore, the feeding station provides for the recording of all time throughout a defined time period, such as 24 hours, as well as any corresponding changes in food weight that would correlate to the consumption amount, and duration of consumption of food consumer throughout the defined recorded time period.”, Para. [0662]).
Regarding claim 11, Gibbs teaches wherein the sensitivity, sample rate, and sequential time increments are established at levels sufficient to allow for sequential mapping the time increments in which the duration-based feeding behavior occurs or is not occurring (“It is well known that while pet dogs are typically “meal fed”, that is, they typically consume their food upon presentation at their meal time, pet cats graze on their food throughout the day, rather than consuming the daily food portion in a single sitting. Therefore, the feeding station provides for the recording of all time throughout a defined time period, such as 24 hours, as well as any corresponding changes in food weight that would correlate to the consumption amount, and duration of consumption of food consumer throughout the defined recorded time period.”, Para. [0662]).
Regarding claims 13-16, Gibbs teaches the load sensor has a sensitivity of +/- 4 grams or 2 grams or less (Implicitly disclosed as having a measurement resolution or sensitivity of 0.1g: “Now then, the owner begins to fill the empty food bowl 408 with the selected type and brand of food. As the bowl scale senses an increase in pressure from the food, it communicates the measurement to the program 405 wherein the engine 405 compares the actual food measurement against the desired 126.4 gm measurement as just described.”, Para. [0159]).
Claims 13-16 are rejected because the time resolution of the weight data collection are not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, while limiting time resolution could provide benefits to the analysis of the data by subdividing it into easier to compute segments of sequential time increments, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, such as the real time data collection of Gibbs, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, applicant’s disclosure does not provide an unexpected result of subdivided data collection instead of the real time data collecting taught by Gibbs.
Regarding claim 17, Gibbs teaches a system of monitoring pet feeding behavior, comprising: a smart pet bowl (See claim 1 above), including: a pet bowl (Fig. 1, “food bowl”, 101) to i) carry pet food or water or ii) carry a bowl insert to carry pet food or water (“a food bowl 101 provides for measuring the weight of dry or wet food material by use of an integral scale.”, Para. [0139]; thus, food is inserted into the bowl 101 and carried by the bowl 101; further, see Fig. 70, “insert” 7005 and Para. [0586]); a load sensor associated with the pet bowl that is sensitive to load changes of pet food or water carried within the pet bowl (Described as having an integral scale: “a food bowl 101 provides for measuring the weight of dry or wet food material by use of an integral scale.”, Para. [0139]), wherein the load sensor has a sensitivity of +/-50 grams or less (Implicitly disclosed as having a measurement resolution or sensitivity of 0.1g: “Now then, the owner begins to fill the empty food bowl 408 with the selected type and brand of food. As the bowl scale senses an increase in pressure from the food, it communicates the measurement to the program 405 wherein the engine 405 compares the actual food measurement against the desired 126.4 gm measurement as just described.”, Para. [0159]) and load data collectable therefrom is at a sample rate from 10 to 150 samples per second in sequential time increments from about 0.01 second to 5 seconds (Disclosed as collecting and using real time data of the food weight: “In another instance, a food bowl containing a scale and an electronic circuit provides for measuring the weight of food entered into the bowl, and in real time communicating the measurement to a computer or other wireless device on the network. The computer or device, having been previously installed with software to compare a desired weight with actual weight of food entered into a bowl, provides for a means not shown to notify the owner that the desired measure of food has been entered into the food bowl.”, Para. [0141], see Paras. [0140]-[0145]); a data communicator to communicate the load data over a computer network (“in real time communicating the measurement to a computer or other wireless device on the network”, Para. [0141]); a processor (Fig. 5, “processors” 503 & 502; “the order presented, or may not necessarily need to be performed at all, according to some embodiments of the invention. These computer-executable program instructions may be loaded onto a general-purpose computer, a special-purpose computer, a processor, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a particular machine, such that the instructions that execute on the computer, processor, or other programmable data processing apparatus create means for implementing one or more functions specified in the flow diagram block or blocks.”, Para. [0762]); and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, (“These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer-readable memory produce an article of manufacture including instruction means that implement one or more functions specified in the flow diagram block or blocks.”, Para. [0762]) includes: receiving the load data from the data communicator (“a software application installed upon the “Cloud” 104, computer 103 or other wireless device on the network provides for a specified weight of food to be communicated to the food bowl.”, Para. [0140]); and identifying a feeding behavior occurring within one or more of the time increments based on the pet interacting with the pet bowl or the contents of the pet bowl (Described as monitoring feeding behavior: “FIG. 1 is an exemplary diagram showing a food portion management system comprising a communication network and measuring food bowl. More specifically, a food bowl 101 provides for measuring the weight of dry or wet food material by use of an integral scale.”, Para. [0139]); identify a feeding behavior occurring by analyzing patterns of load-change fluctuations in the load data indicative of pet interaction with the contents of the pet bowl (Fig. 16; “FIG. 16 is an exemplary diagram showing weight fluctuations relative to unchanged food energy portions, and correlating to reduced food portions…”, Paras. [0271]-[0284] further describes analyzing weight fluctuations).
Gibbs further discloses there is a sample rate in sequential time increments (Figs. 27-30 discloses the use of a “clock” 3002 and “time signature” 3004 and further shows data collected on a time or duration scale). Gibbs is silent on load data collectable therefrom is at a sample rate from 10 to 150 samples per second in sequential time increments from about 0.01 second to 5 seconds.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Gibbs to further include load data collectable therefrom is at a sample rate from 10 to 150 samples per second in sequential time increments from about 0.01 second to 5 seconds, with a reasonable expectation for success, since Gibbs discloses the advantage of “prevent[ing] the system from double-counting water volume by adding the components of metered water consumed, and inferred water consumed during the presence of the drinking signature. After the signature is set up, the collar will only record the drinking signature when not in the immediate presence of a metered water source”, Para. [0380], and because the time resolution of the weight data collection are not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, while limiting time resolution could provide benefits to the analysis of the data by subdividing it into easier to compute segments of sequential time increments and preventing double counting, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, such as the real time data collection of Gibbs, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, applicant’s disclosure does not provide an unexpected result of subdivided data collection instead of the real time data collecting taught by Gibbs.
Gibbs is silent on wherein the processor and the memory are located physically remote to the smart pet bowl and communicate with the data communicator over a network.
However, in an analogous pet feeding and monitoring art, Bailey teaches wherein the processor and the memory are located physically remote to the smart pet bowl and communicate with the data communicator over a network (See Fig. 5; “The microcontroller makes weight readings about every 5 seconds…Image capture, motion detection, and recording were implemented using Labview running under Windows on a host computer. A single computer (Intel Core i5 CPU at 2.67 GHz) was able to successfully capture, process and compress images from four cameras simultaneously. Two such computers were therefore required to monitor all eight cages used in a palatability trial., p. 300, col. 2; note, implicitly disclosed that the computers are a part of a network of at least two computers; “The system can readily monitor multiple cages, and record detailed interaction of the cats with their food…The weight records both the quantity of food consumed, and timing of each meal”, p. 304, Col. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Gibbs wherein the processor and the memory are located physically remote to the smart pet bowl and communicate with the data communicator over a network, as taught by Bailey, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide “new information that was unattainable before. The system will assist the Centre in understanding some of the reasons behind the cat’s rejections and acceptance of certain food products, thus providing more feedback to the pet food manufacturer in relation to their products.”, Bailey, p. 304, Col. 1, V. Conclusion.
Regarding claim 22, Gibbs teaches the system of claim 17, wherein the feeding behavior is a duration-based feeding behavior selected from touching the bowl, moving the bowl, nosing the food, pausing, eating, lapping, licking, or a combination thereof (“It is well known that while pet dogs are typically “meal fed”, that is, they typically consume their food upon presentation at their meal time, pet cats graze on their food throughout the day, rather than consuming the daily food portion in a single sitting. Therefore, the feeding station provides for the recording of all time throughout a defined time period, such as 24 hours, as well as any corresponding changes in food weight that would correlate to the consumption amount, and duration of consumption of food consumer throughout the defined recorded time period.”, Para. [0662]).
Regarding claim 23, Gibbs teaches the system of claim 17, wherein the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, further includes notifying a custodian of the pet of the feeding behavior or a change in the pet feeding behavior (“At the end of the feeding cycle, another measurement not shown may be taken by the food bowl and communicated to the network, the message 509 being data recorded in the daily food log of the animal's individual profile. It is important to note that if less than the entire amount of food was consumed, the actual food measure is compared to the recommended measure for future analysis. Chronic under-eating may signal the onset of a medical condition, at which time, another database not shown, containing at least lookup tables correlating eating disorders with underlying health reasons, informs the owner of the possible causes and remedies, or to seek veterinary care.”, Para. [0175]).
Regarding claim 24, Gibbs teaches the system of claim 23, wherein notifying the custodian includes warning the custodian that the pet may be suffering from a potential health issue (“At the end of the feeding cycle, another measurement not shown may be taken by the food bowl and communicated to the network, the message 509 being data recorded in the daily food log of the animal's individual profile. It is important to note that if less than the entire amount of food was consumed, the actual food measure is compared to the recommended measure for future analysis. Chronic under-eating may signal the onset of a medical condition, at which time, another database not shown, containing at least lookup tables correlating eating disorders with underlying health reasons, informs the owner of the possible causes and remedies, or to seek veterinary care.”, Para. [0175]).
Regarding claims 26-29, Gibbs teaches the load sensor has a sensitivity of +/- 4 grams or 2 grams or less (Implicitly disclosed as having a measurement resolution or sensitivity of 0.1g: “Now then, the owner begins to fill the empty food bowl 408 with the selected type and brand of food. As the bowl scale senses an increase in pressure from the food, it communicates the measurement to the program 405 wherein the engine 405 compares the actual food measurement against the desired 126.4 gm measurement as just described.”, Para. [0159]).
Claims 26-29 are rejected because the time resolution of the weight data collection are not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, while limiting time resolution could provide benefits to the analysis of the data by subdividing it into easier to compute segments of sequential time increments, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, such as the real time data collection of Gibbs, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, applicant’s disclosure does not provide an unexpected result of subdivided data collection instead of the real time data collecting taught by Gibbs.
Regarding claim 30, Gibbs teaches the system of claim 17, wherein the system is capable of differentiating multiple pets in a multi-pet household (“In the drawing, a first feeding station 8701 is used to feed and water a first pet dog 8700. As a means of illustrating multiple feeding stations upon a network, each feeding station provides for the recording of food and water consumption data from pets feeding from their respective feeding stations, a second feeding station 8703 is shown as being used by a second pet dog 8702. The data from each pet feeding station is communicated to the cloud 8500 wherein the data is appended to each pet's personal pet profile on the pet database 8600. A continuum of data is appended to each pet's personal consumption profile and cataloged on a periodic basis, for instance, each day.”, Para. [0690]).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbs (US 2020/0305387 A1) in view of Bailey et al. ("Automating Monitoring of Cat Feeding Behaviour", 2014 IEEE Sensors Applications Symposium (SAS), February 18, 2014, 6 Pages, XP32586872A), cited on the 08/11/2025 IDS, as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, further in view of Chang et al. (US 2010/0299074 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Gibbs as modified by Bailey teaches the smart pet bowl of claim 1, wherein the real time data collection is capable of being controlled by a client device over the computer network (“Within a network, the food bowl is in wired or wireless communication 102 with at least a smartphone 100, a wireless device or computer 103, one or more of which may be in communication with servers or databases within the network.”, Para. [0139]).
Gibbs further discloses there is a sample rate in sequential time increments (Figs. 27-30 discloses the use of a “clock” 3002 and “time signature” 3004 and further shows data collected on a time or duration scale). Gibbs is silent on the sample rate, the sequential time increments, or both.
However, in an analogous pet bowl art, Chang teaches the sample rate, the sequential time increments, or both (“The control center is capable of conducting a plurality of trials for determining amounts of product removed from each of the scales. For example, the control center can send a request for data to the measuring device at any time, and the measuring device will send back the data upon request. The data can be classified or defined by the control center. Each trial can be programmed through the control center. The duration of the trial can be adjustable from 10 min to 24 hours or any suitable amount of time.”, Para. [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Gibbs to further include the sample rate, the sequential time increments, or both, as taught by Chang, with a reasonable expectation for success, since Gibbs discloses the advantage of “prevent[ing] the system from double-counting water volume by adding the components of metered water consumed, and inferred water consumed during the presence of the drinking signature. After the signature is set up, the collar will only record the drinking signature when not in the immediate presence of a metered water source”, Para. [0380], and because the time resolution of the weight data collection are not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, while limiting time resolution could provide benefits to the analysis of the data by subdividing it into easier to compute segments of sequential time increments, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, such as the real time data collection of Gibbs, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, applicant’s disclosure does not provide an unexpected result of subdivided data collection instead of the real time data collecting taught by Gibbs.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Gibbs as modified by Bailey teaches the smart pet bowl of claims 1 and 17, but is silent wherein the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, further includes excluding load data of a human, false trigger, or accidental interaction with the smart pet bowl or contents thereof.
However, Chang further teaches wherein the smart pet bowl is capable of excluding load data of a human, false trigger, or accidental interaction with the smart pet bowl or contents thereof (“In another embodiment, the control center or the computer can be used to initiate testing periods and record testing data in real time or periodically in desirable intervals. Thus, not only is the consumption of food measured, the rate of consumption can be measured. The remote data collecting system can be designed to avoid false positives, for example, if one or more of the scales are stepped upon.”, Para. [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pet bowl system of Gibbs wherein the smart pet bowl is capable of excluding load data of a human, false trigger, or accidental interaction with the smart pet bowl or contents thereof, as taught by Chang, with a reasonable expectation for success, “to avoid false positives, for example, if one or more of the scales are stepped upon”, as discussed by Chang, Para. [0031].
Claim(s) 8-9, 12, 21, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbs (US 2020/0305387 A1) in view of Bailey et al. ("Automating Monitoring of Cat Feeding Behaviour", 2014 IEEE Sensors Applications Symposium (SAS), February 18, 2014, 6 Pages, XP32586872A), cited on the 08/11/2025 IDS, as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, further in view of Trimble et al. (WO 2022/096535 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Gibbs as modified by Bailey teaches the smart pet bowl of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the sensitivity, sample rate, and sequential time increments are established at levels sufficient to identify count-based feeding behavior selected from lapping, licking, or biting.
However, in an analogous pet bowl art, Trimble teaches wherein the sensitivity, sample rate, and sequential time increments are established at levels sufficient to identify count-based feeding behavior selected from lapping, licking, or biting (“A proximity sensor such as the capacitive touch sensor may be configured to activate the RFID reader. Such a reader may comprise an integral loop antenna, which may generally surround the basin. The RFID reader may read an animal’s microchip, preferably to identify the animal. In this way, a drinking event may be associated with a particular animal. In example arrangements, the capacitive touch sensor and/or the RFID loop antenna can be configured to detect proximity of an animal, e.g. an apparatus may rely on the loop antenna to detect a drinking event merely based on proximity to an animal’s microchip. Preferably, the antenna is at a shallow angle for easier animal access to the water, however this may result in RFID reading being too slow to detect the animal before the animal starts to drink. Therefore, in an embodiment the capacitive touch sensor may be the only element configured to detect proximity.”, p. 38, Lines 22-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pet bowl of Gibbs wherein the sensitivity, sample rate, and sequential time increments are established at levels sufficient to identify count-based feeding behavior selected from lapping, licking, or biting, as taught by Trimble, with a reasonable expectation for success, such that a drinking event may be associated with a particular animal thereby separating the data between multiple pets, as discussed by Trimble, p. 38.
Regarding claim 9, Trimble further teaches wherein the sensitivity, sample rate, and sequential time increments are established at levels sufficient to allow for counting individual micro-events of the feeding behavior within a single time increment or for an unbroken period of time spanning multiple time increments, wherein the individual micro-events include individual laps, individual licks, or individual bites (biting (“A proximity sensor such as the capacitive touch sensor may be configured to activate the RFID reader. Such a reader may comprise an integral loop antenna, which may generally surround the basin. The RFID reader may read an animal’s microchip, preferably to identify the animal. In this way, a drinking event may be associated with a particular animal. In example arrangements, the capacitive touch sensor and/or the RFID loop antenna can be configured to detect proximity of an animal, e.g. an apparatus may rely on the loop antenna to detect a drinking event merely based on proximity to an animal’s microchip. Preferably, the antenna is at a shallow angle for easier animal access to the water, however this may result in RFID reading being too slow to detect the animal before the animal starts to drink. Therefore, in an embodiment the capacitive touch sensor may be the only element configured to detect proximity.”, p. 38, Lines 22-31).
Regarding claim 12, Trimble further teaches further comprising a secondary sensor selected from a proximity sensor, a camera, a microphone, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, an inertial measurement unit sensor, a radar, or a combination thereof (“The presence or proximity of a pet may be detected using an infrared emitter and/or a capacitive proximity sensor. A capacitive proximity sensor may comprise a capacitive sensor placed under a surface such as a floor and/or mat of the apparatus, for example to sense touch and/or proximity of an animal (e.g. paw thereof) when approaching the basin. Regarding a pet interrupting an infrared beam, positioning a beam sensor around a water basin to detect a pet may require obstructive or intrusive structures that may deter a cat from drinking. On the other hand, if an infrared sensor were disposed in a less intrusive position (e.g., away from a front portion of the basin), it may be too slow to detect a pet. Additionally, a beam may only detect the presence of a pet, i.e., cannot detect whether a pet is actually drinking. Reliability of an IR sensor may also be dependent on ambient sunlight.”, p. 22, lines 20-30).
Regarding claim 21, Gibbs as modified by Bailey teaches system of claim 17, but is silent on wherein the feeding behavior is a count-based feeding behavior selected from lapping, licking, or biting.
However, in an analogous pet bowl art, Trimble teaches wherein the feeding behavior is a count-based feeding behavior selected from lapping, licking, or biting (“A proximity sensor such as the capacitive touch sensor may be configured to activate the RFID reader. Such a reader may comprise an integral loop antenna, which may generally surround the basin. The RFID reader may read an animal’s microchip, preferably to identify the animal. In this way, a drinking event may be associated with a particular animal. In example arrangements, the capacitive touch sensor and/or the RFID loop antenna can be configured to detect proximity of an animal, e.g. an apparatus may rely on the loop antenna to detect a drinking event merely based on proximity to an animal’s microchip. Preferably, the antenna is at a shallow angle for easier animal access to the water, however this may result in RFID reading being too slow to detect the animal before the animal starts to drink. Therefore, in an embodiment the capacitive touch sensor may be the only element configured to detect proximity.”, p. 38, Lines 22-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pet bowl of Gibbs wherein the feeding behavior is a count-based feeding behavior selected from lapping, licking, or biting, as taught by Trimble, with a reasonable expectation for success, such that a drinking event may be associated with a particular animal thereby separating the data between multiple pets, as discussed by Trimble, p. 38.
Regarding claim 25, Trimble further teaches wherein the smart pet bowl further includes a secondary sensor including a proximity sensor, a camera, a microphone, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, an inertial measurement unit sensor, or a combination thereof (“The presence or proximity of a pet may be detected using an infrared emitter and/or a capacitive proximity sensor. A capacitive proximity sensor may comprise a capacitive sensor placed under a surface such as a floor and/or mat of the apparatus, for example to sense touch and/or proximity of an animal (e.g. paw thereof) when approaching the basin. Regarding a pet interrupting an infrared beam, positioning a beam sensor around a water basin to detect a pet may require obstructive or intrusive structures that may deter a cat from drinking. On the other hand, if an infrared sensor were disposed in a less intrusive position (e.g., away from a front portion of the basin), it may be too slow to detect a pet. Additionally, a beam may only detect the presence of a pet, i.e., cannot detect whether a pet is actually drinking. Reliability of an IR sensor may also be dependent on ambient sunlight.”, p. 22, lines 20-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/09/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1 and 17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the added limitations to claims 1 and 17, it is noted that Gibbs further discloses: identify a feeding behavior occurring by analyzing patterns of load-change fluctuations in the load data indicative of pet interaction with the contents of the pet bowl (Fig. 16; “FIG. 16 is an exemplary diagram showing weight fluctuations relative to unchanged food energy portions, and correlating to reduced food portions…”, Paras. [0271]-[0284] further describes analyzing weight fluctuations).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Gibbs to further include load data collectable therefrom is at a sample rate from 10 to 150 samples per second in sequential time increments from about 0.01 second to 5 seconds, with a reasonable expectation for success, since Gibbs discloses the advantage of “prevent[ing] the system from double-counting water volume by adding the components of metered water consumed, and inferred water consumed during the presence of the drinking signature. After the signature is set up, the collar will only record the drinking signature when not in the immediate presence of a metered water source”, Para. [0380], and because the time resolution of the weight data collection are not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, while limiting time resolution could provide benefits to the analysis of the data by subdividing it into easier to compute segments of sequential time increments and preventing double counting, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, such as the real time data collection of Gibbs, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, applicant’s disclosure does not provide an unexpected result of subdivided data collection instead of the real time data collecting taught by Gibbs.
Lastly, Bailey discloses “The microcontroller makes weight readings about every 5 seconds…Image capture, motion detection, and recording were implemented using Labview running under Windows on a host computer. A single computer (Intel Core i5 CPU at 2.67 GHz)”, p. 300, col. 2.
Therefore, it would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device to further include load data collectable therefrom is at a sample rate from 10 to 150 samples per second in sequential time increments from about 0.01 second to 5 seconds, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide “new information that was unattainable before. The system will assist the Centre in understanding some of the reasons behind the cat’s rejections and acceptance of certain food products, thus providing more feedback to the pet food manufacturer in relation to their products.”, Bailey, p. 304, Col. 1, V. Conclusion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J SHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am - 4:00 pm EDT.
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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/Richard Green/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647