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 without traverse of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 11/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, “the end caps are spherical, elliptical, cylindrical, or planar” should be -- the end caps are shaped at least one of: spherical, elliptical, cylindrical, and planar--.
Claim 5, “wherein the U-shaped channel is shaped such that the first and second horizontal rods are stacked vertically, side-by-side, or diagonally when placed within the U-shaped channel” should be --wherein the U-shaped channel is shaped such that the first and second horizontal rods are stacked at least one of: vertically, side-by-side, and diagonally, when placed within the U-shaped channel--.
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 3 and 6-11 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.
Claim 3 recites the phrase "can be closed off", which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites the phrase "can engage the walls of the U-shaped channel", which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the walls" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the phrase "can be attached", which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 8-11 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers (U.S. Patent No. 109,648) in view of Johoda (U.S. Patent No. 2,460,505).
For claim 1, Myers discloses a kit for a livestock feeding device (It has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951)), comprising: a first horizontal rod (Fig. 1: C) and a second horizontal rod (Fig. 1: a different rod C), each horizontal rod having an end cap (Fig. 1-2: D) that are larger in diameter than a shaft of the rod (as shown in Fig. 2); a mounting bracket (Fig. 1: A) adapted to be affixed to an associated vertical surface (Col. 2, lines 1-2), each mounting bracket comprising: a U-shaped channel (Fig. 1: B) having an opening (as shown in the annotated Fig. 1 below) and adapted to receive both the first horizontal rod and the second horizontal rod (as shown in Fig. 1); a mounting member (as shown in the annotated Fig. 1 below); a connecting member joining the U-shaped channel and the mounting member together (as shown in the annotated Fig. 1 below); and a stiffener plate underneath the connecting member (such that the stiffener plate extends a distance under the connecting member) joining the U-shaped channel and the mounting member (as shown in the annotated Fig. 1 below).
Myers fails to show each horizontal rod having end caps. Jahoda shows a kit comprising: a first horizontal rod (20) and a second horizontal rod (another of the rods 20), each horizontal rod having end caps (Figs. 1 and 3: 22) that are larger in diameter than a shaft of the rod. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the kit of Myers to include the end caps as taught by Jahoda for the advantage of maintaining each of the horizontal rods in position in the at least two mounting brackets.
Myers fails to show at least two mounting brackets. 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 modified the kit of Myers to include at least two brackets for the advantage of mounting multiple feeding devices, since it is has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
For claim 2, Myers as modified by Jahoda disclose the kit of claim 1, wherein the mounting member includes apertures (as shown in Myers Fig. 1) for fastening the mounting bracket to the associated vertical surface.
For claim 3, Myers as modified by Jahoda disclose the kit of claim 1, wherein the opening of the U-shaped channel can be closed off by a hinged clip. The use of the phrase “can be” appears to indicate the hinged clip is not a required part of the claimed invention. Further, the structure of the U-shaped channel is structured to allow a hinged clip to close off the opening.
For claim 4, Myers as modified by Jahoda disclose the kit of claim 1, wherein the end caps (as shown in Jahoda Figs. 1, 3 and 6: 22) are spherical (Jahoda Fig. 3: 22), elliptical, cylindrical, or planar.
For claim 5, Myers as modified by Jahoda disclose the kit of claim 1, wherein the U-shaped channel (as shown in Myers Fig. 1: B) is shaped such that the first and second horizontal rods are stacked vertically, side-by-side (as shown in Myers Fig. 1: C), or diagonally when placed within the U-shaped channel.
For claim 6, Myers as modified by Jahoda disclose the kit of claim 1, wherein the end caps (as shown in Myers Fig. 1: D) of the first and second horizontal rods can engage the walls of the U-shaped channel (as shown in Myers Fig. 1: B) such that the first and second horizontal rods cannot fall out of the channel if moved horizontally (as shown in Myers Fig. 1).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers (U.S. Patent No. 109,648) in view of Johoda (U.S. Patent No. 2,460,505), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sterrett (U.S. Patent No. 2,126,513).
For claim 13, Myers as modified by Jahoda disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein the first and second horizontal rods are telescopic. Sterrett teaches a kit comprising: a first horizontal rod (Fig. 3: 15) and a second horizontal rod (another of the rods 15), wherein the first and second horizontal rods are telescopic (Col. 2, lines 15-21). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the kit of Myers to include the telescopic horizontal rods as taught by Sterrett for the advantage of storing the horizontal rods when not in use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7-11 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Portnoy (U.S. Patent No. 4,127,195) shows a first horizontal rod and a second horizontal rod -34-, each horizontal rod having end caps -at each respective end of each rod 34- that are larger in diameter than a shaft of the rod; at least two mounting brackets -defined by a pair of radial flanges 26, and back wall 24-.
Pleiss (U.S. Patent No. 1,796,344) shows a plurality of horizontal rods -4-; and a mounting bracket having a U-shaped channel -1-.
Anderson (U.S. Patent No. 4,366,908) shows a plurality of horizontal rods -26-; and a mounting bracket -24- having a U-shaped channel.
Kalal et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2,817,889) shows a hook comprising a U-shaped channel -24- having an opening; a mounting member -23-; a connecting member -25-; and a stiffer plate -27- underneath the connecting member.
Eriksen (U.S. Patent No. 1,464,311) shows an upper horizontal rod -5- and a lower horizontal rod -17-; and at least two mounting brackets -4-.
KR 200397897 shows a mounting bracket comprising a U-shaped channel -30- having an opening; a mounting member -14-; a connecting member -12-; and a stiffer plate -200- underneath the connecting member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE A CLERKLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7611. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIELLE A CLERKLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3643