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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: "the base is comprises a horizontal member" should be replaced with either --the base comprises a horizontal member-- or the base is comprised of a horizontal member . 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 8 and 12-14 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.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear if applicant is claiming that the body and the base are two separate elements of the containment device (e.g. a bucket and a separate stand) or if the body is comprised of the base (e.g. a pan with a sidewall and base). For the purpose of examination: the examiner understands the body and the base to be two separate elements of the containment device as disclosed in the figures.
Claims 12-14 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
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, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell, Jr. (US 4603506) in view of Billings (US 2018/0064044) in view of Lipani (US 10130048).
Regarding claim 1, Powell, Jr. teaches a containment device comprising: a body comprised of: an opening (pan 10, col. 2, ll. 47-48, fig. 2); an interior space (interior of pan 10, fig. 3); a screened drainage hole (col. 3, ll. 57-59, fig. 4), and a drain plug (gate valve 74, fig. 4) but fails to teach the screen being rustproof, a lid, a clamp fastener that secures one end of the lid to the body; and wherein the lid is a wire mesh lid comprising a plurality of openings configured to allow passage of a spray of water into the interior space when the lid is closed. However, Billings teaches a rustproof screen (screen 105h is made of a galvanized steel mesh material, para. 0026, fig. 4A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Powell, Jr.’s screen with a galvanized screen as taught by Billings to increase the durability of the screen to prevent damage. And Lipani teaches a lid (dome 30, col. 4, ll. 42-44, fig. 2), a clamp fastener that secures one end of the lid to the body (col. 10, ll. 48-53); and wherein the lid is a wire mesh lid comprising a plurality of openings configured to allow passage of a spray of water into the interior space when the lid is closed (col. 5, ll. 59-65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Powell, Jr.’s device with a lid as taught by Lipani to protect a plant from animals. Regarding “an animal bathing containment device” It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 5, Powell, Jr. as modified by Billings and Lipani teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Powell, Jr. further teaches a handle (front and rear pipe sections 70 and 71, fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Powell, Jr. as modified by Billings and Lipani teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Powell, Jr. further teaches wherein the drain plug is comprised of a valve (gate valve 74, fig. 3 and 4).
Claims 8, 12, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell, Jr. (US 4603506) in view of Lipani (US 10130048).
Regarding claim 8, Powell, Jr. teaches a containment device comprising: a body comprised of: an opening (pan 10, col. 2, ll. 47-48, fig. 2); a base (tubular frame 12, col. 2, ll. 57-60, fig. 3); an interior space (interior of pan 10, fig. 3); a drainage hole (col. 3, ll. 57-59, fig. 4); a drain plug (gate valve 74, fig. 4) and further wherein the base comprises a horizontal member (horizontal pipe joints 46-53, col. 3, ll. 21-24, fig. 5) and a telescoping vertical member (vertical tubular frame members 30-35 are inserted into T-joints 20-22 and 24-26, col. 3, ll. 13-21, fig. 5) but fails to teach a lid attached to the body via hinge; a clamp fastener that secures one end of the lid to the body opposite the hinge; and wherein the lid is a wire mesh lid comprising a plurality of openings configured to allow passage of a spray of water into the interior space when the lid is closed. However, Lipani teaches a lid attached to the body via hinge (dome 30, col. 4, ll. 42-44, fig. 2); a clamp fastener that secures one end of the lid to the body opposite the hinge (col. 10, ll. 48-53); and wherein the lid is a wire mesh lid comprising a plurality of openings configured to allow passage of a spray of water into the interior space when the lid is closed (col. 5, ll. 59-65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Powell, Jr.’s device with a lid as taught by Lipani to protect a plant from animals. Regarding “an animal bathing containment device” It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 12, Powell, Jr. as modified by Billings and Lipani teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Powell, Jr. further teaches a handle (front and rear pipe sections 70 and 71, fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Powell, Jr. as modified by Billings and Lipani teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Powell, Jr. teaches wherein the drainage hole is comprised of a screened drainage hole (protective screen 78, col. 3, ll. 57-59, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Powell, Jr. as modified by Billings and Lipani teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Powell, Jr. teaches wherein the drain plug is comprised of a valve (gate valve 74, fig. 3 and 4).
Claims 8, 12, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell, Jr. in view of Lipani, as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Hans (DE 4414829).
Regarding claim 17, Powell, Jr. as modified by Lipani teaches the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach wherein the base attaches to the body via a second fastener. However, Hans teaches a base (1) attached to a body (6) via a fastener (32, fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Powell, Jr.’s system with a fastener as taught by Hans to prevent unwanted separation if the system tips or is knocked over.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed. The limitation of a method of providing an animal bathing containment system comprising a body with a drain, a mesh screen lid, a clip fastener, a drain plug and a base; placing an animal within the body, closing the lid and securing the lid to the body with the clip and spraying a liquid through the screen lid on to the animal as claimed in claim 1 is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record, in the examiner’s opinion. For example, Gallego (US 5765507) discloses placing a cat within a bathing containment system but fails to disclose placing a mesh screen lid on the body and spraying a liquid through the screen lid.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7 and 8, filed 2/6/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 8, 12-14, and 17 under 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Powell, Jr. (US 4603506), Billings (US 2018/0064044) and Lipani (US 10130048).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 2/6/2026, with respect to claims 18-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 18-20 has been withdrawn.
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 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 EBONY E EVANS whose telephone number is (571)270-1157. The examiner can normally be reached 9am -5pm 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 5712726909. 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.
/EBONY E EVANS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647