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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-13 and 15-22, drawn to a modular vessel, classified in A01K 7/00.
II. Claim 14, drawn to a method of assembling a modular vessel, classified in Y10T29/49826.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the details recited in the method claim 14 involve limitations relating to the volumetric capacity not recited in the product claims. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: The method of joining will require additional searching for the recited volumetric space.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claims 1 and 16 generic to the following disclosed patentably distinct species:
Species A. A modular vessel having grooves in addition to engaging interlocking surfaces with a separate base closure as seen in Figures 20A-20C. As discussed in Claim 15 Line 2, the vessel includes a surround portion and one or more of a basin portion and/or a base portion 30. However, while appearing to indicate that the base portion is optional in Line 2, the language of the claim then requires the basin portion coupling to the base portion and not the surround portion.
Species B. A modular vessel having apertures in addition to engaging interlocking surfaces and a separate base closure as seen in Figures 21A-21B.
Species C. A modular vessel having apertures and no base as seen in Figures 22A-22E.
The species are independent or distinct because each has distinct structures for attachment of components and finger engagement means. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
The plurality of possible structures as graspable elements and attachment structures requires extensive searching for each feature.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or a grouping of patentably indistinct species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the species to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Mr. Bradley Ganz on December 17, 2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the product invention of Group I, claims 1-13 and 15-22. An Election of Species was made to Species C directed to Claims 1, 2, 4-13 and 16, 17, 19-22. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 3, 14, 15, and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 1-13 and 15-22 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 Claim 1, the claim recites that the outer wall surface of the surround portion includes two or more spaced apart graspable elements AND ADDITIONALLY that the vessel as a whole comprises graspable elements comprising deep grooves or apertures. It is unclear if the graspable elements of the surround portion are the same or different from the graspable elements of the vessel.
For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the graspable elements of the surround portion are the same as the vessel graspable elements.
Claims 1, 15 and 16 recite the limitation "the volumetric space". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the term “the outer wall surface of the surround portion” in Line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the term “the outer wall surface of the vessel” in Line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the range “…between 30mm to 300+mm.” This is indefinite, as the plus sign (+) renders the range unclear. It is not understood whether the range is a minimum of 30mm or that 300mm is some other upper limit. Please note the similar range of Claim 20.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites “…the graspable elements do not extend above the surround portions general outer surface plane...” There is some typographical error or inaccuracy, as it is not clear if the possessive form is intended (i.e. the surround portion’s general outer surface plane…”) Additionally, there is some kind of antecedent basis issue as it is not defined or introduced that the surround portion inherently includes a general outer surface plane. Please consider the following language for Claim 8.
8. (Examiner’s Proposed amendment) The vessel of claim 2 wherein the graspable elements do not extend beyond an outermost planar surface defined by the surround portion and comprise inwardly extending apertures that are configured for the insertion of a user’s fingers.
Claim 14 recites the range “45cm2 to 4500 cm2”. However, it appears that the perimeter length is claimed and not a surface area measurement (measured in square centimeters or cm2).
All dependent claims are rejected as dependent on a rejected base claim.
Please note that while Claims 3, 13, 15, and 18 are WITHDRAWN, they are noted herein as having potential issues under 35 USC 112(b) and their dependency from rejected independent claims. They ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS TREATED ON THE MERITS and are noted here for consideration by Applicant for future filing. These claim MAY NOT BE REJOINED based on future amendments to any allowed claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, 16-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinnon (US 2015/0250138) in view of Moran (US 10792227).
Regarding Claim 1, McKinnon discloses modular vessel suited for holding water or foodstuff, the vessel comprising a surround portion (401) and a basin portion (411). The surround portion has an internal wall surface (407 seen in Figures 5 and 6) and the basin portion has an external wall, the internal and external wall surfaces being configured so that they have engaging, interlocking surfaces when assembled wherein the fastener 427 engages lip 423 of the basin. The outer wall surface of the surround portion includes two or more spaced apart graspable elements (apertures 409, 425) each graspable element being configured to receive one or more fingers of a user so that the user can grasp the graspable element and lift the vessel from a surface when the vessel is upright on the surface, without having to place the fingers within the volumetric space or under the vessel (Paragraph 0043).
McKinnon does not disclose the outer wall surface of the vessel comprises graspable elements that comprise multiple deep grooves or apertures vertically oriented around the circumference of the vessel, and wherein the graspable elements include opposing sides that can be pinched by fingers. Rather, McKinnon discloses generally horizontal apertures.
Moran discloses a similar vessel (23) and surround portion (22) wherein the vessel engages with the surround portion wherein a top rim (32) of the surround has an inwardly directed rib (33) for cooperation and snape engagement with the cup (23) at a groove (38) for removable attachment between the vessel and the jacket. Moran also discloses the jacket includes a plurality of holes (25) and two vertically oriented ovoid opening (26) at opposite sides of the jacket. However, Moran also discloses that the holes (5) of the jacket forming the mesh may be of any suitable shape (Col. 3 Lines 40-42). McKinnon and Moran are analogous inventions in the art of containers with outer surround portions configured to be engaged with a user’s fingers.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the two horizontal apertures disclosed in McKinnon with the multiple deep apertures vertically oriented around the circumference of the surround portion as disclosed in Moran in order to more easily grip the vessel at any position along the vertical height of the container and around the whole exterior of the container (Col. 3 Lines 55-58).
Regarding Claim 2, both McKinnon and Moran disclose the surround and basin portions are removably assembled.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, both McKinnon and Moran disclose the surround portion and basin portion comprise different materials. McKinnon discloses the removable bowl/liner may be made of metal (Paragraph 0029) and the outer cover may be made of plastic (Paragraph 0031).
Regarding Claim 6, McKinnon discloses the vessel has a low center of gravity.
Regarding Claim 7, while McKinnon does not disclose a height of the vessel, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the dimensions of the bowl may be modified to suit different design requirements, such as the relative volumetric capacity of the vessel or a required height for differently sized pets.
Regarding Claim 8, both McKinnon and Moran disclose the graspable elements do not extend above a plane defined by the outer surface of the surround portion and comprise apertures that are configured for finger access.
Regarding Claim 9, Moran discloses he graspable elements are formed in the surround portion and include opposing sides that are configured to be pinched by a pair of fingers on the same hand, the opposing sides defining apertures that expose the outer wall of the basin portion.
Regarding Claim 10, Moran discloses n there are at least two graspable elements, the two graspable elements being spaced about the perimeter of the outer wall surface between 30-180 degrees apart.
Regarding Claim 11, Moran discloses the apertures extend over majority of the height of the surround portion.
Regarding Claim 13, Moran discloses there are at least three graspable elements, the graspable elements being spaced equidistantly about the perimeter of the outer wall surface.
Regarding Claim 16, McKinnon in view of Moran discloses modular vessel suited for holding water or foodstuff, the vessel comprising: a surround portion and a basin portion. Moran discloses the surround portion has an internal, vertical-wall surface that includes a flange portion (33) that projects horizontally or transversely from that surface, the flange being circumferentially disposed about the vertical wall surface continuously or in spaced apart sections. Moran discloses the inner the basin portion includes a flange portion (38) projecting horizontally or vertically from the outer wall, the surround portion flange and the basin portion flange being configured so that they have engaging overlapping or otherwise interlocking surfaces when assembled. Similarly, McKinnon and Moran disclose the outer wall surface of the surround portion includes two or more spaced apart graspable elements, each graspable element being configured to receive one or more fingers of a user so that the user can grasp the graspable element and lift the vessel from a surface when the vessel is upright on the surface, without having to place the fingers within the volumetric space or under the vessel.
Regarding Claim 17, both McKinnon and Moran disclose the surround and basin portions are removably assembled.
Regarding Claim 19, both McKinnon and Moran disclose the surround portion and basin portion comprise different materials.
Regarding Claim 20, as discussed above, McKinnon discloses the vessel has a low center of gravity. Similarly, it would be obvious to vary the dimensions of the vessel’s heights to suit differently sized pets or accommodate differing amounts of water or food.
Regarding Claim 21, Moran discloses the graspable elements are formed in the surround portion and include opposing sides that are configured to be pinched by a pair of fingers on the same hand, the opposing sides defining apertures that expose the outer wall of the basin portion.
Regarding Claim 22, Moran discloses there are at least two graspable elements, the two graspable elements being spaced about the perimeter of the outer wall surface between 30-180 degrees apart.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, please note Kumar (US 2018/0343826) and Davis (US 3653362).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIDEON R. WEINERTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM 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, Orlando Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/GIDEON R WEINERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3736