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 .
Claims 1-2, 5-11, 13, and 16-20 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cooling element (claim 1) and heating element (claim 7) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 7, line 10, “pe;” should read “pet;”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dippold et al. (WO 2024220989 A2), hereafter referred to as “Dippold”, in view of Baxter et al. (US 20250120363 A1), hereafter referred to as “Baxter”.
Regarding claim 1, Dippold teaches a pet bowl device (figs. 1-15) comprising:
a bowl base (102) comprised of an interior cavity (fig. 1);
a lid (122, 808; figs. 1 and 8) connected to the bowl base via a hinge (page 7, lines 32-34; fig. 8), the lid being automatically transitional between an open state (fig. 1) and a closed state (page 7, line 22-line 25 and page 9, line 35-page 10, line 19);
a locking mechanism for securing the lid to the bowl base in the closed state (page 7, lines 34-36);
a motion sensor configured to detect the movement of a pet near the pet bowl device (page 2, line 34-page 3, line 6 and page 9, line 35-page 10, line 19); and
a microcontroller (902) configured to receive a signal from the motion sensor and, in response to detecting the movement of the pet, to activate the hinge to transition the lid from the closed state to the open state (page 9, line 35-page 10, line 19);
wherein the bowl base if a composite material bowl base (page 9, lines 7-9, e.g., teaching acrylonitrile butadiene styrene “ABS”, which is formed by combining multiple monomers); and
further wherein the bowl base is further a cooling element embedded bowl base (page 10, lines 12-34, teaching that 102 encloses element 902 within, including a thermoelectric cooling element).
Dippold does not explicitly teach that the locking mechanism is an electronic locking mechanism, and wherein the motion sensor is an ultrasonic sensor.
As shown above, Dippold teaches that the opening and closing of the lid is programmable (page 9, line 35-page 10, line 19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dippold, such that the locking mechanism is also electronic, in order to selectively control when the lid is locked without the need of user intervention.
Baxter teaches a pet bowl device (figs. 1-25) including an ultrasonic motion sensor (paragraph [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dippold, such that the motion sensor is an ultrasonic motion sensor, in order to improve the detection of pets by allows the device to detect both moving and stationary objects.
Regarding claim 5, Dippold in view of Baxter teaches the pet bowl device of claim 1, and further teaches an actuator connected to the hinge (page 7, lines 32-34), wherein the microcontroller is configured to activate the actuator to open the lid upon detecting movement of the pet (page 2, line 34-page 3, line 6 and page 9, line 35-page 10, line 19, page 7, lines 32-34 and page 8, lines 12-21).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dippold in view of Baxter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sweeny (US 2157682 A), hereafter referred to as “Sweeny.”
Regarding claim 2, Dippold as modified by Baxter teaches the pet bowl device of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the hinge is comprised of a spring-assisted hinge.
Sweeny teaches a pet bowl device (figs. 1-2) including a spring-assisted hinge (15; col 2, lines 13-18 and claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dippold in view of Baxter such that the hinge is a spring-assisted hinge, as taught by Sweeny, in order to improve the closure of the lid to improve freshness of the food.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dippold in view of Baxter as applied to claim 1, and further in view of McVeigh (GB 2451804 A), hereafter referred to as “McVeigh.”
Regarding claim 6, Dippold teaches the pet bowl device of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the microcontroller is configured to keep the lid open for a predetermined time after the pet departs from proximity to the device.
McVeigh teaches a pet bowl device (figs. 1-5) including a microcontroller is configured to keep a lid open for a predetermined time after the pet departs from proximity to the device (page 4, lines 9-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dippold such that the microcontroller is configured to keep the lid open for a predetermined time after the pet departs from proximity to the device, as taught by McVeigh, in order to ensure that the lid does not hit the pet.
Claims 7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dippold in view of Luttrell et al. (US 20180035638 A1), hereafter referred to as “Luttrell”.
Regarding claim 7, Dippold teaches a pet bowl device (figs. 1-15) comprising:
a bowl base (102) comprised of a microwaveable material (page 7, line 7-9, e.g., teaching ceramic), the bowl base comprised of an interior cavity (fig. 1);
a lid (122, 808; figs. 1 and 8) connected to the bowl base via a motorized hinge (page 7, lines 32-34 teaching a hinge, shown in fig. 8, with element 810), the lid being automatically
transitional between an open state (fig. 1) and a closed state (fig. 1; page 7, line 22-line 25 and page 9, line 35-page 10, line 19);
a speaker (1006) configured to play a sound at a programmable feeding time (page 12, lines 27-29, page 7, lines 22-25, and page 9, line 8);
a locking mechanism for securing the lid to the bowl base in the closed state (page 7, lines 34-36); and
a microcontroller (902) configured to receive a signal from a motion sensor and to control the motorized hinge to automatically open and close the lid based on the proximity of a pet (page 8, lines 12-21 and page 9, line 35-page 10, line 19); and
further wherein the bowl base is further a heating element embedded bowl base (page 10, lines 12-34, teaching that 102 encloses element 902 within, including a thermoelectric heating element).
Dippold does not explicitly teach that the locking mechanism is an electronic locking mechanism and that the bowl base is an antimicrobial coated bowl base.
As shown above, Dippold teaches that the opening and closing of the lid is programmable (page 9, line 35-page 10, line 19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dippold, such that the locking mechanism is also electronic, in order to selectively control when the lid is locked without the need of user intervention.
Luttrell teaches a pet bowl device (figs. 1-11a) including a bowl base (12) with an antimicrobial coating (claim 8 and paragraph [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dippold, such that the bowl base is an antimicrobial coated bowl base, as taught by Luttrell, in order to prevent bacterial and fungal growth (paragraph [0072] of Luttrell).
Regarding claim 9, Dippold in view of Luttrell teaches the pet bowl device of claim 7, and Dippold further teaches that the lid (122) is comprised of a transparent material allowing a visual access to the interior cavity (page 12, lines 37-39).
Regarding claim 10, Dippold in view of Luttrell teaches the pet bowl device of claim 7, and Dippold further teaches wherein the motorized hinge (page 7, lines 32-34 teaching a hinge, shown in fig. 8, with element 810) is activated by an actuator in response to a signal from the microcontroller (page 7, lines 32-34 and page 8, lines 12-21).
Regarding claim 11, Dippold in view of Luttrell teaches the pet bowl device of claim 7, and Dippold further teaches a weight sensor (812) disposed in the interior cavity to measure an amount of food or an amount of water positioned within the interior cavity (page 2, line 27-33 and page 9, lines 26-39).
Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dippold in view of Luttrell, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Gonet (US 20060032451 A1), hereafter referred to as “Gonet.”
Regarding claim 8, Dippold in view of Luttrell teaches the pet bowl device of claim 7, but does not explicitly teach wherein the microwaveable material is comprised of a non-toxic plastic.
Gonet teaches a pet bowl device (figs. 1-3) including a microwaveable material (paragraph [0023]) comprised of a non-toxic plastic (paragraph [0023] teaching polypropylene).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dippold in view of Luttrell such that the microwavable material includes a non-toxic plastic, as taught by Gonet, in order to improve the portability, mitigate cracking of the bowl base, and to ensure food-safe materials for the pet.
Claims 13, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dippold in view of Baxter, Burke (US 20220354087 A1), hereafter referred to as “Burke”, and Luttrell.
Regarding claim 13, Dippold teaches a pet bowl device (figs. 1-15) comprising:
a bowl base (102) comprised of an interior cavity (fig. 1) and a non-slip bottom surface (page 11, lines 23-25);
a transparent lid (122, 808; figs. 1 and 8; page 12, lines 37-39 teaching a transparent lid) connected to the bowl base via a motorized hinge (page 7, lines 32-34 teaching a hinge, shown in fig. 8, with element 810);
a motion sensor configured to detect the movement of a pet near the pet bowl device (page 2, line 34-page 3, line 6 and page 9, line 35-page 10, line 19);
a microcontroller (902) configured to receive a signal from a motion sensor and to control the motorized hinge to automatically open and close the lid (page 9, line 35-page 10, line 19); and
a programmable timer configured to automatically open the transparent lid based on a pre-set schedule (page 7, lines 22-25 and page 11, lines 32-39); and
wherein the non-slip bottom surface is comprised of a rubber (page 11, lines 23-25);
wherein the programmable timer is programmable via a software application (page 11, lines 22-25).
Dippold does not explicitly teach that the motion sensor is an ultrasonic sensor, that the rubber is a recessed textured rubber, and further wherein the bowl is an antimicrobial coated bowl base.
Baxter teaches a pet bowl device (figs. 1-25) including an ultrasonic motion sensor (paragraph [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dippold, such that the motion sensor is an ultrasonic motion sensor, in order to improve the detection of pets by allows the device to detect both moving and stationary objects.
Burke teaches a pet bowl device (figs. 1-5C) including a recessed textured rubber (paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dippold in view of Baxter, such that the rubber is a recessed textured rubber, as taught by Burke, in order to increase the static or sliding coefficient of friction of the base and the surface that the base is resting on (paragraph [0030] of Burke).
Luttrell teaches a pet bowl device (figs. 1-11a) including a bowl base (12) with an antimicrobial coating (claim 8 and paragraph [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dippold in view of Baxter and Burke, such that the bowl base is an antimicrobial coated bowl base, as taught by Luttrell, in order to prevent bacterial and fungal growth (paragraph [0072] of Luttrell).
Regarding claim 16, Dippold in view of Baxter, Burke, and Luttrell teaches the pet bowl device of claim 13, and further teaches that the pet bowl device comprises a camera (912).
Regarding claim 18, Dippold in view of Baxter, Burke, and Luttrell teaches the pet bowl device of claim 16, and further teaches that the camera (912) is configured to recognize a pet (page 2, lines 34-40).
Regarding claim 20, Dippold in view of Baxter, Burke, and Luttrell teaches the pet bowl device of claim 13, and further teaches wherein the bowl base (102) is comprised of a round shape (page 7, line 12-13).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dippold in view of Baxter, Burke, and Luttrell as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of McVeigh.
Regarding claim 17, Dippold in view of Baxter, Burke, and Luttrell teaches the pet bowl device of claim 13, but does not explicitly teach wherein the microcontroller activates the motorized hinge after detecting movement continuously for a predetermined time.
McVeigh teaches a pet bowl device (figs. 1-5) including a microcontroller activating a hinge to close a lid after detecting a lack of movement continuously for a predetermined time (page 4, lines 9-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dippold in view of Baxter, Burke, and Luttrell such that the microcontroller activates the motorized hinge after detecting movement continuously for a predetermined time, as suggested by McVeigh, in order to mitigate premature opening of the lid when the animal briefly passes.
Regarding claim 19, Dippold in view of Baxter, Burke, and Luttrell teaches the pet bowl device of claim 13, but does not explicitly teach wherein the microcontroller is configured to close the lid automatically after a predetermined period of inactivity detected by the motion sensor.
McVeigh teaches a pet bowl device (figs. 1-5) including a microcontroller configured to close a lid automatically after a predetermined period of inactivity detected by the motion sensor (page 4, lines 9-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dippold in view of Baxter, Burke, and Luttrell such that the microcontroller is configured to close the lid automatically after a predetermined period of inactivity detected by the motion sensor, as taught by McVeigh, in order to ensure that the lid does not hit the pet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant argues, on page 1 of the Remarks, that Dippold does not teach a bowl base with a composite material, and that the bowl base is a cooling element embedded bowl base. The examiner respectfully disagrees. While applicant mentions that ABS is not a composite material, instant paragraph [0026] merely states “The pet bowl 100 is made of a microwaveable material such as non-toxic plastic or composite material and the bowl is safe for microwave use, allowing for easy heating of pet food”, and does not go into further detail regarding what applicant considers “composite material”. In terms of broadest reasonable interpretation, Dippold teaches ABS, which is formed by combining multiple monomers (page 9, lines 7-9), and is thus a composite material.
Additionally, Dippold teaches a cooling element embedded within the bowl base 102 (page 10, lines 12-34, teaching that 102 encloses element 902 within, including a thermoelectric cooling element).
Regarding independent claim 7, applicant argues, on page 3, that Dippold does not teach that an antimicrobial coated bowl base, and that the bowl base is a heating element embedded bowl base. As shown in the rejection above, Luttrell is relied upon for the teaching of an antimicrobial coated bowl base.
Additionally, Dippold teaches a heating element embedded within the bowl base 102 (page 10, lines 12-34, teaching that 102 encloses element 902 within, including a thermoelectric heating element).
Regarding independent claim 13, applicant argues, on pages 3-4, that Dippold does not teach that the timer is programmable via a software application, and that the bowl base is an antimicrobial coated bowl base.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Dippold teaches that the timer is programmable via a software application (page 11, lines 22-25, e.g., stating “The assembly 100 may be programmed (e.g., on the assembly itself through the electronic display 910 or through a software application communicatively coupled to the ECU 902 through a network interface) to another time interval or feeding schedule, e.g., 8am and 6pm every day until the food is gone”).
Additionally, Luttrell is relied upon for the teaching of the antimicrobial coating.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. The references have many of the elements in the applicant’s disclosure and claims. For example, US-20100077963-A1, US-20170112093-A1, and US-20200037577-A1 teach similar pet bowls with an antimicrobial bowl base.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Byun whose telephone number is (571) 272-3212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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. Agendas may be sent to HaeRie.Byun@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached on (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.
/H.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/MARISA V CONLON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
