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 locking mechanism 110 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. 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 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); but 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.
Claims 7, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dippold.
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), but does not explicitly teach that the locking mechanism is an electronic locking mechanism.
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.
Regarding claim 9, Dippold teaches the pet bowl device of claim 7, and 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 teaches the pet bowl device of claim 7, and 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 teaches the pet bowl device of claim 7, and 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).
Claims 13-14, 16, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dippold in view of Baxter and Burke (US 20220354087 A1), hereafter referred to as “Burke”.
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), but does not explicitly teach that the motion sensor is an ultrasonic sensor, and that the rubber is a recessed textured rubber.
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).
Regarding claim 14, Dippold in view of Baxter and Burke teaches the pet bowl device of claim 13, and further teaches that the non-slip bottom surface is comprised of a rubber (page 11, lines 23-25 of Dippold).
Regarding claim 16, Dippold in view of Baxter and Burke 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 and Burke 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 and Burke 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).
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.
Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dippold, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Gonet (US 20060032451 A1), hereafter referred to as “Gonet.”
Regarding claim 8, Dippold 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 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 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dippold in view of Baxter and Burke as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of McVeigh.
Regarding claim 17, Dippold in view of Baxter and Burke 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 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 and Burke 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 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 10/06/2025 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.
Applicant argues, on page 6, that Dippold does not teach an electronic locking mechanism. As shown in the rejection 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.
Applicant argues, on page 7, that Dippold does not teach that the motion sensor is an ultrasonic sensor. As shown in the rejection above, Baxter is relied upon for the above limitation.
Applicant argues, on page 7, that Dippold does not teach “a speaker configured to play a sound at a programmable feeding time”, stating that Dipoold’s speaker 1006 is merely used to make noises when food is warmed and that can be programmed with a user’s voice.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While Dippold states that the speaker 1006 can be utilized to make noises when the food is warmed (page 12, lines 27-29), Dippold states that the step of warming food is a part of feeding, which includes time-based operation, and that feeding occurs once warming is complete (page 7, lines 22-25 and page 9, line 8).
Applicant argues that Dippold and Burke do not teach a recessed textured rubber surface.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Burke at paragraph [0030] explicitly teaches a textured surface with, e.g., ridges, grooves, bumps, diamonds or pyramids, which teaches a recessed surface.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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.
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