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 .
Status of Application
This is the first action on the merits of application 18/942,566 initially filed on November 9, 2024.
The Examiner notes that the initial “Claims” and “Abstract”, filed November 9, 2024, are not in proper form (i.e., not arranged on separate pages) and are thus being considered as a part of the specification, filed November 9, 2024.
As multiple sets of documents have been submitted, the Examiner would like to note that the following documents are considered of record and have been examined:
Abstract: December 17, 2024
Specification: December 17, 2024
Drawings: November 9, 2024
Claims: December 17, 2024
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the separate abstract sheet, filed December 17, 2024, contains the application title “Pet-Power Bell-Bowl”. It is suggested to remove the application title from the abstract page. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout and contents for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Content of Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
Therefore, with regard to the specification filed December 17, 2024, it is suggested to amend to:
Remove all references to patent application numbers (see for example, para [0001]).
Remove claims (see page 10/13, section beginning “The following were claims for 18/388,169…”).
Remove abstract (see page 10/13, section beginning “The following was an ABSTRACT for 18/388,169…”).
Remove ancillary communication such as:
Page 1/13, paragraph beginning “The first file – Nov. 2023 – for easy ref, is here in full…”.
Page 11/13, all paragraphs.
Page 13/13, phrase under “Embodiment 6”, “as in the USPTO’s original application…resent 11th Jan 2024”.
In the specification, filed December 17, 2024, the use of the terms “YouTube” (para [0003]), “Facebook” (para [0003]), “The Guardian” (para [0004]), “Amazon” (para [0006]), “Alibaba” (para [0006]), “Walmart” (para [0006]), “Petco” (para [0006]), and “Petsmart” (para [0006]) which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
To overcome the above objection, the following is suggested:
Amend para [0003], line 1 to --Over the last four years, social media platforms have shown videos of dogs and cats…--.
Amend para [0004], line 3 to include the appropriate trade markings after “The Guardian”.
Amend para [0006], lines 1-3 to --While searching for existing products at various commercial retailers, as well as the UK’s IPO, USPTO, Espacenet…--.
Additionally, the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Under “Brief Description of the Drawings”, the description of fig. 4 includes reference to “FIG. 1” and “FIG. 2”. The Examiner interprets these references to refer to Fig. 4A and Fig. 4B, thus it is suggested to amend “FIG. 1” and “FIG. 2” in para [0010] to, for example, --FIG. 4A-- and --FIG. 4B--, respectively.
Under “Brief Description of the Drawings”, no reference is made to fig. 5 of the drawings filed November 9, 2024. It is suggested to either include reference to fig. 5 under the “Brief Description of the Drawings” section or to remove fig. 5 and renumber the remaining references to figures accordingly.
Under “Brief Description of the Drawings”, no reference is made to fig. 6-7 of the drawings filed November 9, 2024. It is suggested to include references to fig. 6-7 under the “Brief Description of the Drawings” section.
It appears the paragraphs of the specification filed December 17, 2024 are numbered such that they omit paragraph [0024]. It is suggested to correct paragraph numbering accordingly.
Para [0023], [0027], and [0028] each reference the term “Pet-Power Gong.com”. It is unclear as to what this term refers, whether it is referring to a pet hydration or feeding device comprising a gong, or to a specific website. It is suggested to utilize more generic terminology such as –Pet-Power Gong-- to aid in clarity of the disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings filed November 9, 2024 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference “100” in fig. 1, 2, and 3.
Reference “101” in fig. 1, 2, 3, and 6.
Reference “102” in fig. 4 and 6.
Reference “103” in fig. 1, 2, and 3.
Reference “104” in fig. 1, 2, and 3.
Reference “112” in fig. 4 and 6.
To overcome the above objection, it is suggested to amend the “Detailed Description of the Invention” of the specification to include the abovementioned reference characters.
The drawings are objected to because two figures are labeled as “FIG. 6”. It is suggested to, for example, renumber the figures of the drawings such that each drawing corresponds to a single figure number, and to ensure that updated figure numbers correspond to those included under the “Brief Description of the Drawings” section of the specification.
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
Claims 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 1, it is suggested to amend the phrase “The apparatus of Claim 1” to --The apparatus of claim 1-- to utilize more consistent formatting across claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 are 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.
Claim 1, line 3, recites the limitation “near a first bowl”. However, claim 1, line 2 recites the limitation “At least two bowls”. It is unclear whether the “first bowl” of claim 1, line 3 is referring to one of the at least two bowls of claim 1, line 2 or to another element. If the “first bowl” recited in claim 1, line 3 is one of the at least two bowls introduced in claim 1, line 2, it is suggested to amend claim 1, line 3 --near a first bowl of the at least two bowls--.
Similarly, claim 1, line 6, recites the limitation “near a second bowl”. However, claim 1, line 2 recites the limitation “At least two bowls”. It is unclear whether the “second bowl” of claim 1, line 6 is referring to one of the at least two bowls of claim 1, line 2 or to another element. If the “second bowl” recited in claim 1, line 6 is one of the at least two bowls introduced in claim 1, line 2, it is suggested to amend claim 1, line 6 –near a second bowl of the at least two bowls--.
Claim 2, line 1, recites the limitation “wherein the feedback signal is an audible alert”. However, claim 1, lines 4 and 7, recites both “a first feedback signal” and “a second feedback signal”. It is unclear whether “the feedback signal” of claim 2 refers to the first feedback signal, the second feedback signal, each of the first and second feedback signals, or another feedback signal altogether. If “the feedback signal” of claim 2 refers to each of the first and second feedback signals, it is suggested to amend claim 2 to --wherein each of the first feedback signal and the second feedback signal is an audible alert…--.
Claim 2, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “wherein the feedback signal is an audible alert generated by one or more pet-actuated sound-producing elements…”. However, in claim 1, lines 4-5 and 7-8, the feedback signals are described as being generated by first and second actuating devices. It is thus unclear whether the feedback signals, or audible alerts, are being produced by the actuating devices or by pet-actuated sound-producing elements. It is further unclear whether the first and second actuating devices are the same element or different elements from the pet-actuated sound-producing devices. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 2, line 4, recites the limitation “The elements may be a percussive instrument…”. The phrase “may be” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). One having ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine whether the element is a percussive instrument or not and thus the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
Similarly, claim 2, line 5, recites the limitation “The elements may be arranged opposite each other…”. The phrase “may be” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). One having ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine whether the elements are arranged opposite each other or not and thus the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 3, line 1, recites the preamble, “The pet hydration or feeding device…”. However, claim 1 recites the preamble “An apparatus for feeding and hydrating a pet…”. Since the preamble of claim 3 substantially differs from that of claim 1, it is unclear whether the preamble of claim 3 refers back to the same device introduced in claim 1 or to a different device. To overcome this issue, it is suggested to amend the preamble of claim 3 to read as --The apparatus…--.
Claim 3, line 1, recites the limitation “on a single bowl”. However, claim 1, line 2 recites the limitation “At least two bowls”. It is unclear whether the “single bowl” of claim 3, line 1 is referring to one of the at least two bowls of claim 1, line 2 or to another element. If the “single bowl” recited in claim 3, line 1 is one of the at least two bowls introduced in claim 1, line 2, it is suggested to amend claim 3, line 1 to --a single bowl of the at least two bowls--.
Claim 3, lines 1-2 recites the limitation “a support fixed to the bowl’s side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the bowl’s side” in the claim, as a “bowl’s side” has not previously been introduced in the claims. It is further unclear whether the “bowl” of this limitation refers to the previously introduced “single bowl” or to another element. To overcome this issue, it is suggested to amend the limitation to, for example, --a side of the single bowl--.
Claim 3, lines 2-3, recites the limitation “a platform on which a single actuating device sits”. However, claim 1, lines 3 and 6, recites both “a first actuating device” and “a second actuating device”. It is unclear whether “a single actuating device” of claim 3 refers to the first actuating device, the second actuating device, each of the first and second actuating devices, or another actuating device altogether. If “a single actuating device” of claim 3 refers to any one of the first and second actuating devices, it is suggested to amend claim 3 to --a platform on which any one of the first actuating device or second actuating device sits--.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shainfun (https://www.amazon.com/Elevated-Feeder-Raised-Adjusable-Stainless/dp/B0BY2LR4QP?th=1, last visited 04/01/2025), hereinafter Shainfun.
PNG
media_image1.png
642
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1. Image from Shainfun (Examiner-Annotated)
Regarding claim 1, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) issues identified above, Shainfun discloses an apparatus for feeding and hydrating a pet (see title “Elevated Dog Bowls…”), comprising:
a. At least two bowls, each configured to hold either pet food or water (see annotated fig. 1);
b. A first actuating device positioned near a first bowl (see annotated fig. 1);
c. The first actuating device configured to produce a first feedback signal when actuated (see section “Pet Interaction”: “Special bells can be used to call your pet to eat”, note that the sound of the attached bell is interpreted as a feedback signal).
Shainfun does not appear to specifically disclose:
d. A second actuating device positioned near a second bowl;
e. The second actuating device configured to produce a second feedback signal when actuated.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have included a second actuating device configured to produce a second feedback signal when actuated since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to provide actuating devices associated with each of the at least two bowls and/or for aesthetic purposes. The Examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the inclusion of a second actuating device anywhere on the structure taught by Shainfun would result in having a second actuating device positioned near a second bowl.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) issues identified above, Shainfun as modified discloses the pet hydration or feeding device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein, on a single bowl, a support fixed to the bowl's side extends out to become a platform on which a single actuating device sits (see annotated fig. 1, bell is located on a platform extending from a support).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Shainfun (https://www.amazon.com/Elevated-Feeder-Raised-Adjusable-Stainless/dp/B0BY2LR4QP?th=1, last visited 04/01/2025), hereinafter Shainfun, as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ingraham et al. (US 4,542,714 A), hereinafter Ingraham.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) issues identified above, Shainfun as modified discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the feedback signal is an audible alert generated by one or more pet-actuated sound-producing elements enabling the pet to communicate a need (see annotated fig. 1; see section “Pet Interaction”: “Special bells can be used to call your pet to eat”, note that the sound of the attached bell is interpreted as an audible alert);
a. The elements may be a percussive instrument or instruments (see annotated fig. 1, actuating device is a bell).
Shainfun as modified does not appear to specifically disclose:
b. The elements may be arranged opposite each other to serve as counterweights.
However, Ingraham is in the field of pet-actuated sound-producing elements (see title and fig. 3) and teaches:
b. The elements (bells 28b) may be arranged opposite each other to serve as counterweights (see fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus for feeding and hydrating a pet with actuating devices or elements of Shainfun as modified to have arranged the elements opposite each other as taught by Ingraham with a reasonable expectation of success to make the apparatus more symmetrical and thus improve the overall aesthetic appeal of the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following claim 4, drafted by the examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application, is presented to applicant for consideration:
4. An apparatus for feeding and hydrating a pet comprising:
at least two bowls configured to hold food or water for a pet;
an elevated support platform for supporting the at least two bowls in an elevated position;
a first shaft attached within the support platform near a first bowl of the at least two bowls;
a first lever attached to the first shaft and extending above the support platform, wherein the first lever is pivotable about a longitudinal axis of the first shaft;
a first percussive instrument attached to the first shaft, wherein the first percussive instrument is configured to produce a first audible alert, wherein the first percussive instrument is attached to the first shaft by a first bolt extending below the support platform connected to the first percussive instrument and pivotable about the longitudinal axis of the first shaft;
a second shaft attached within the support platform near a second bowl of the at least two bowls;
a second lever attached to the second shaft and extending above the support platform, wherein the second lever is pivotable about a longitudinal axis of the second shaft;
a second percussive instrument attached to the second shaft, wherein the second percussive instrument is configured to produce a second audible alert, wherein the second percussive instrument is attached to the second shaft by a second bolt extending below the support platform connected to the second percussive instrument and pivotable about the longitudinal axis of the second shaft; and
wherein the first and second percussive instruments are arranged opposite each other to serve as counterweights.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached on (571) 272-6909. 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.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647