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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-5, 10-13, 15, 19 have been considered but 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelsor (US Pub. 6,142,101) in view of Cox (US Pub. 2008/0289581 A1) and Iljas (US Pub. 2007/0245968 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pelsor discloses a spill-proof pet bowl device (Abstract, lines 1-2: “An improved splash and spill-resistant container for holding a fluid is disclosed”) comprising:
a base (Fig. 2b, base 11) comprised of a bottom wall and a side wall (Fig. 2b, base 11 comprises a bottom portion and a cylindrical side portion);
and a weighted component (Fig. 2b, support flange 14 although any number of components can be considered a “weighted portion”);
and a lid comprised of an opening comprised of a perimeter edge (Fig. 2b, inverted frustoconical housing 30) comprised of a bevel (Fig. 2a, downturned flange 32)
However, Pelsor fails to disclose as taught by Cox, similarly drawn to a pet bowl, wherein the bottom surface of the base comprises a textured rubber grip (Fig. 1, suction cup 40. Suction cups are known in the art to be made from rubber).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spill-proof pet bowl of Pelsor to include the textured rubber grip of Cox to prevent the bowl from sliding.
However, Pelsor fails to disclose as taught by Iljas, similarly drawn to a pet bowl, wherein the lid threadedly attaches to the base (Pg. 3, [0021], lines 16-21: “A raised cylindrical ring 6 is formed on the 'D' shaped top surface top of the dish base structure, the ring having a cylindrical inside surface joining the cylindrical walls 8 of the closed bottom depression 7. The outside surface of the raised ring 6 is provided with a circumferentially threaded portion to engage a cover”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spill-proof pet bowl of Pelsor to include the threadedly attached lid of Iljas as an improved attachment means. The snap-fit lid of Pelsor is more likely to accidentally be removed than a threaded connection.
Regarding claim 3, Pelsor as modified by Cox and Iljas discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Cox, wherein the base is comprised of a fastener (Fig. 1, suction cup 40).
Regarding claim 4, Pelsor as modified by Cox and Iljas discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Cox, wherein the fastener is comprised of an adhesive, a suction cup, or a magnet (See id).
Regarding claim 5, Pelsor as modified by Cox and Iljas discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Cox, wherein the fastener is positioned on a bottom surface of the bottom wall (Fig. 1, suction cup 40 is located on the bottom wall).
Claim(s) 10-11, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelsor (US Pub. 6,142,101) in view of Ellis (US Pub. 2007/0199512 A1) and Becattini (US Pub. 2009/0241844 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Pelsor discloses a spill-proof pet bowl device (Abstract, lines 1-2: “An improved splash and spill-resistant container for holding a fluid is disclosed”) comprising:
a base (Fig. base 11) comprised of a bottom wall and a side wall (Fig. 2b, base 11 comprises a bottom portion and a cylindrical side portion);
an insert (Fig. 2a, frusto-conical wall 21);
and a lid comprised of an opening comprised of a perimeter edge (Fig. 2b, inverted frusto-conical housing 30) comprised of a bevel (Fig. 2a, downturned flange 32).
However, Pelsor fails to disclose as taught by Ellis, similarly drawn to a drinking bowl for a pet, an adhesive fastener on a bottom surface of the bottom wall (Pg. 2, [0013], lines 10-20: “Alternatively, there may be provided on the undersurface of the base section means to attach the bowl to a generally horizontal surface. Such attachment means could comprise a piece of the hook-part of a hook-and-loop fastener whereby the bowl may be attached to a fabric or carpet surface by pressing the bowl into engagement therewith. Other possibilities include providing a magnet or a magnetized sheet on the under-surface, for attraction to a metal surface such as may be found in the floor of an estate car, or an adhesive sheet protected until required for use by a strippable backing sheet”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spill-proof pet bowl of Pelsor to include the adhesive fastener of Ellis to more securely attach the bowl to a surface.
Furthermore, Pelsor fails to disclose as taught by Becattini, similarly drawn to a pet feeding system, wherein the lid magnetically attaches to the insert (Pg. 4, [0073], lines 1-10: “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the housing 8 comprises a first reservoir 2 and a second reservoir 4. The first reservoir 2 and second reservoir 4 are detachably coupled to each other, with the first reservoir 2 disposed above the second reservoir 4. As can be appreciated, the weight of the first reservoir 2 and a proper frictional fit are generally adequate to keep the first and second reservoirs affixed to each other in use. In alternative embodiments, the affixation of the two reservoirs may be made more secure by latches, magnets, buckles, hooks, snaps, or other similar means”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spill-proof pet bowl of Pelsor to include the magnetic lid fastener of Becattini as a more convenient releasable attachment means.
Regarding claim 11, Pelsor as modified by Ellis and Becattini discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Pelsor, wherein the insert is comprised of a cone shape (Col. 4, lines 18-19: “In both embodiments, an inner portion of the housing preferably has an inverted frusto-conical shape”).
Regarding claim 13, Pelsor as modified by Ellis and Becattini discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Pelsor, wherein the insert attaches to the base (Fig. 2a, frusto-conical wall 21 attaches to base 11 at lip 17. Col. 6, lines 24-31: “In a first embodiment, as illustrated in FIGS. 2a and 2b, a peripheral ledge 15 extends substantially perpendicularly from the sidewall 13 of the base 11. The upstanding sidewall 13 also continues beyond ledge 15 and, coupled with a member extending upwardly from the top surface of the ledge 15, forms a U-shaped mating groove 16. To assist in 30 holding the other components of the container 10 together, a lip 17 is formed in the outer portion of the ledge 15”).
Regarding claim 15, Pelsor as modified by Ellis and Becattini discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Pelsor, wherein the base is comprised of a weight (Fig. 2b, support flange 14 although any number of components can be considered a “weighted portion”).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelsor (US Pub. 6,142,101) in view of Ellis (US Pub. 2007/0199512 A1) and Becattini (US Pub. 2009/0241844 A1), and further in view of Wurth (US Pub. 2014/0238305 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Pelsor as modified by Ellis and Becattini discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Wurth, similarly drawn to a pet bowl, wherein the insert is comprised of a pyramidal shape (Pg. 2, [0028], lines 1-8: “Cavity 26 and cavity 24 have any shape suitable for using the measuring device for its intended purpose, particularly for managing the weight of animals. In preferred embodiments, the cavities have a concave shape, a concave shape with ripples along the surface of the concave shape, a concave shape with a dome in the bottom of the shape, a square box shape, a rectangular box shape, a pyramidal shape, and the like”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spill-proof pet bowl of Pelsor to include the pyramidal insert of Wurth as it is a common shape for dog bowls.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelsor (US Pub. 6,142,101) in view Becattini (US Pub. 2009/0241844 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Pelsor discloses a method of using a spill-proof pet bowl device, the method comprising the following steps:
providing a spill-proof pet bowl device (Abstract, lines 1-2: “An improved splash and spill-resistant container for holding a fluid is disclosed”) comprised of a base (Fig. base 11) and a lid (Fig. 2b, inverted frusto-conical housing 30) that clamps to the base (The snap-fit connection of Pelsor can be considered to be clamping), a top wall of the lid comprised of an opening with a perimeter edge comprised of a bevel (Fig. 2a, downturned flange 32);
placing the base on a surface (Col. 6, lines 20-22: “As should be appreciated, this support flange 14 acts to elevate the center depression of the concave floor 12 above ground level”);
clamping the lid to the base (See Fig. 2a, the lid and insert attach to the base);
and filling the base with a liquid (Col. 10, lines 63-65: “In summary, an improved splash and spill resistant container 10 for holding fluids, such as water for animal consumption… is disclosed”).
However, Pelsor fails to disclose as taught by Becattini, similarly drawn to a pet feeding system, magnetically attaching an insert to the base (Pg. 4, [0073], lines 1-10: “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the housing 8 comprises a first reservoir 2 and a second reservoir 4. The first reservoir 2 and second reservoir 4 are detachably coupled to each other, with the first reservoir 2 disposed above the second reservoir 4. As can be appreciated, the weight of the first reservoir 2 and a proper frictional fit are generally adequate to keep the first and second reservoirs affixed to each other in use. In alternative embodiments, the affixation of the two reservoirs may be made more secure by latches, magnets, buckles, hooks, snaps, or other similar means”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spill-proof pet bowl of Pelsor to include the magnetic lid fastener of Becattini as a more convenient releasable attachment means.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642