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 without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) and Species A (Figs. 1A-12B) in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/15/2025.
Applicant elected species A and stated that claims 1-15 read on the elected species. The Office disagrees, as claims 7-15 are directed to an animal interaction device comprising “a drive mechanism comprising a rack engaged with the rotatable platform and a drive in communication with the rack; and a controller configured to control rotation of the rotatable platform to move the food tray between a first position concealed under the housing and a second position outside the housing.”. In particular the rack is only described within the disclosure in relation to the embodiment shown in Figs. 20-36, the rack gear within the disclosure is discussed as being an element of elected species A (Figs. 1A-12B). Therefore as the claims contain structures which are directed to a non-elected species, claims 7-15 have been withdrawn. The only claims directed to both an elected species and elected invention are claims 1-6, which have been examined as seen below.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mcllarky (US 6681718 B1) in view of Morosin (US 20050066905 A1) and Abramson (US 8100084 B1).
Regarding claim 1: Mcllarky discloses an animal interaction device (abstract) comprising: a base (119D) having a top surface (Fig. 1); a housing (119B) covering at least a portion of the top surface of the base (Fig. 1); a food access component (27) attached to the housing; a food container containing food (34); a food conveyor (40) integral to the food container, wherein the conveyor while conveying food makes a sound recognizable to an animal as being of food being conveyed (the food would be scraping the conveying structure 40 when dispensed therefore making a recognizable sound); a food presentation platform (46) configured to receive food from the conveyor.
Mcllarky fails to teach a detector, wherein the detector detects dispensing of pieces of food into the food container, preventing access by an animal, the food presentation platform being controllable so as to be able to present and withdraw the food it has received; and a controller in communication with the food presentation platform and the food conveyor.
Morosin teaches preventing access by an animal (para 39), the food presentation platform (120) being controllable so as to be able to present and withdraw the food it has received (paras 39-41 describe a rotatable sliding door 132 and bowl 120, which could be used together so as to present and hide food); and a controller (400) in communication with the food presentation platform (120, para 44, “FIGS. 6A and 6B depict two embodiments of a control panel 400 for the automated pet feeder 100 that allow the user to program desired times at which food the feeding bowl 120 will be rotated to make a new cavity 200 with food accessible for feeding.”) and the food conveyor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the feeder as disclosed by Mcllarky with the access prevention as taught by Morosin with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a means of preventing access to the feed would achieve the predictable result of controlling the weight of the animal by preventing undesired consumption.
Abramson teaches a detector, wherein the detector detects dispensing of pieces of food into the food container (scale/food dish 110, Col 7 lines 40-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the animal device as disclosed by modified Mcllarky with the detector as taught by Abramson with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a detector for the feed would achieve the predictable result of verifying that the amount of feed is sufficient enough to provide substance to the animal while at the same time decreasing the likelihood of overconsumption.
Regarding claim 2: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Morosin further teaches wherein the food presentation platform (120) is rotatable (para 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the feed platform as disclosed by modified Mcllarky with the rotation as taught by Morosin with a reasonable expectation of success because providing the platform to be rotatable would allow for the feed to be withdrawn when desired and also can introduce another element of entertainment and interaction for the animal.
Regarding claim 3: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Abramson further teaches at least one sensor (120) for detecting the animal's condition, wherein the controller controls the food presentation platform based on the detected animal's condition (Col 6 lines 4-20, receiver 120 senses the proximity of transmitter 118 and determines whether to provide access to food or not).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the controller as disclosed by modified Mcllarky with the presentation/withdrawal as taught by Abramson with a reasonable expectation of success because so as to ensure the feed is provided to the right animal and achieving the predictable result of ensuring that the animal receives the necessary feed specifically for them as opposed to consuming another animal’s feed.
Regarding claim 5: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Morosin further teaches at least one indicator selected from the group consisting of a speaker and a light (para 44 discusses a LCD indicator to prompt the user to set a feeding time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the feeder as disclosed by modified Mcllarky with the LCD indicator as taught by Morosin with a reasonable expectation of success because providing an indicator for the feeding time to be set would achieve the predictable result of establishing an automatic routine of feeding for the animal, decreasing the amount of work needed by the owner of the animal.
Regarding claim 6: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches a controller (Morosin 400).
Abramson further teaches providing and removing access to the food based on the animal's condition (Col 6 lines 4-20, receiver 120 senses the proximity of transmitter 118 and determines whether to provide access to food or not).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the controller as disclosed by modified Mcllarky with the presentation/withdrawal as taught by Abramson with a reasonable expectation of success because so as to ensure the feed is provided to the right animal and achieving the predictable result of ensuring that the animal receives the necessary feed specifically for them as opposed to consuming another animal’s feed.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mcllarky, Morosin, and Abramson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brooks (US 20110174224 A1).
Regarding claim 4: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Mcllarky as modified fails to teach wherein the food conveyor is a screw conveyor.
However, Brooks teaches wherein the food conveyor (11) is a screw conveyor (para 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the conveyor as disclosed by modified Mcllarky with the screw conveyor as taught by Brooks with a reasonable expectation of success so as to provide the conveyor with the ability of dispensing feed in a metered and controlled manner, decreasing the likelihood that the animal is overfed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art not relied upon are within applicant’s related field of animal interaction and feeding apparatuses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642