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 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 1-19 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 recites the limitation "the plurality of apertures" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a plurality of apertures” in line 2. It is unclear if the plurality of apertures are referring back to claim 1 “plurality of apertures” or if there are multiple sets of apertures.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “a temperature of between approximately 85 degrees and 105 degrees” but fails to disclose whether the degrees are in Celsius or Fahrenheit, thus the claim is indefinite.
Claims 3-19 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim. 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.
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 1-2 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avila (US 2017/0339919) in view of Wu et al (US 2009/0173282 henceforth Wu).
Regarding claim 1, Avila disclose a pet feeding system, comprising: a main body having a top surface, a bottom surface, and a plurality of side surfaces that form a generally hollow interior space (holder 10, para. 0035, fig. 2); a first top opening that is disposed along the top surface of the main body (aperture 32, fig.2); a second top opening that is disposed along the top surface of the main body (adjacent aperture 32, para. 0036, fig. 2); a first dish that is removably positioned within the first top opening (bowl 12, para. 0033); a second dish that is removably positioned within the second top opening (other bowl 12, para. 0033); a plurality of apertures that are disposed along the top surface at a location adjacent to the second top opening (apertures 18, para. 0034, fig. 1); and a drip tray that is removably positioned beneath each of the second dish opening (tray 44, para. 0034, fig. 2), and each of the plurality of apertures (tray 44 is positioned below apertures 18, fig. 2) but fails to teach a plurality of lights; a system controller; and a display screen, wherein the plurality of lights and the display screen are connected to the system controller, and the display screen is configured to display information and receive user instructions for operating the plurality of lights. However, Wu teaches a plurality of lights (LED 313, para. 0022); a system controller (control module 30, para. 0022); and a display screen (display panel 311), wherein the plurality of lights and the display screen are connected to the system controller (para. 0022), and the display screen is configured to display information and receive user instructions for operating the plurality of lights (para. 0022). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Avila’s feeder with a system as taught by Wu to allow a user to selectively control the operation of the feeder (i.e. to control the fan and/or lights being on or off).
Regarding claim 2, Avila as modified by Wu teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Avila further teaches a plurality of apertures that are disposed along the top surface at a location adjacent to the second top opening (apertures 18, fig. 4), wherein the plurality of apertures are configured to direct a spilled liquid from the top surface of the main body into the drip tray (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Avila as modified by Wu teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Wu further teaches wherein the controller includes a wireless communication unit (para. 0024).
Regarding claim 16, Avila as modified by Wu teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Wu further teaches wherein the wireless communication unit is configured to receive instructions to selectively operate the plurality of lights (para. 0022, control module 30 is configured to input instructions to the processing unit).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avila, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Horvath (US 2008/0190372).
Regarding claim 3, Avila as modified by Wu teaches the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach a first lock ring that is configured to secure the first dish within the first opening; and a second lock ring that is configured to secure the second dish within the second opening. However, Horvath teaches a first lock ring that is configured to secure the first dish within the first opening, (para. 0025, fig. 5 and 6); and a second lock ring that is configured to secure the second dish within the second opening (para. 0025, fig. 5 and 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Avila’s feeder with lock as taught by Horvath to prevent unwanted movement of the bowls during use.
Claims 5, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avila in view of Wu, as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Hardy (GB 2501740).
Regarding claim 5, Avila as modified by Wu teaches the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach a plurality of air vents that are positioned between the first dish and the main body and a tray that is removably positioned between the first dish and the bottom surface of the main body, wherein the tray is configured to receive a scented material having an aroma that is discharged through each of the plurality of air vents. However, Hardy teaches a plurality of air vents that are positioned between the first dish and the main body (control vents 3, fig. 1) and a tray that is removably positioned between the first dish and the bottom surface of the main body (support tray 7, pg. 5, Il. 16-17), wherein the tray is configured to receive a scented material having an aroma that is discharged through each of the plurality of air vents (pg. 5, Il. 16-17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Avila’s feeder with vent system as taught by Hardy to reduce and/or mask unwanted odors being released by animal food.
Regarding claim 6, Avila as modified by Wu and Hardy teaches the invention substantially as Claimed and Hardy further teaches a fan that is positioned within the main body, said fan functioning to direct the aroma to each of the plurality of air vents (pg. 6, line 34-pg. 7, line 2).
21. Regarding claim 7, Avila as modified by Wu and Hardy teaches the invention substantially as Claimed and Hardy further teaches a bottom opening that is positioned along the main body, wherein the fan is positioned adjacent to the bottom opening (pg. 4, Il. 35- 36, fig. 3 and pg. 6, Il. 34-36). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Avila’s feeder with bottom opening as taught by Hardy to allow the feeder to be separated for easy cleaning.
Claims 8-13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avila in view of Wu in view of Hardy, as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Statton (US 6363886).
Regarding claim 8, Avila as modified by Wu and Hardy teaches the invention substantially as Claimed but fails to teach a heating plate that is positioned within the main body, said heating plate including a surface for receiving the tray. However, Statton teaches a heating plate (bowl 36 and electric heater 38, col. 4, Il. 9-11) that is positioned within the main body (feeder 10, fig. 7), said heating plate including a surface for receiving the tray (top surface of heater 38, fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hardy’s feeder with a heating plate as taught by Statton to maintain the contents at a temperature to prevent freezing.
Regarding claim 9, Avila as modified by Wu, Hardy and Statton teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Hardy further teaches the fan connected to a control switch (pg. 7, Il. 5-7) and Statton further teaches the heating plate are connected to a control switch (thermostat 48) but references fail to teach wherein each of the fan and the heating plate are connected to a control switch located along the main body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the fan and the heating plate connected to a control switch located along a main body, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this case, connecting the fan and the heating plate to a control switch located along the main body would allow the system to be used with types of feeders.
Regarding claim 10, Avila as modified by Wu, Hardy and Statton teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Statton teaches wherein the heating plate functions to heat the tray to a temperature of between approximately 85 degrees and 105 degrees (fig. 9, thermostat can be set to a temperature of or above 85 degrees).
Regarding claim 11, Avila as modified by Wu, Hardy and Statton teaches the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach wherein the tray is constructed from a heat conductive material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the tray constructed from a heat conductive material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. /n re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. In this case, constructing the tray from a heat conductive material would prevent damage to the feeder during use.
Regarding claim 12, Avila as modified by Wu, Hardy and Statton teaches the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach wherein the heating plate is positioned in line with the fan to receive a stream of air that is generated by the fan. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the heating plate positioned in line with the fan, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. /n re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this case, positioning the heating plate in line with the fan would conserve space to allow the system to be used in feeders of varying sizes and shapes.
Regarding claim 13, Avila as modified by Wu, Hardy and Statton teaches the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach wherein the heating plate is positioned between the fan and the first dish. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the heating plate positioned between the fan and a first dish, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. /n re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 17, Avila as modified by Wu, Hardy and Statton teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Wu further teaches wherein the controller includes a wireless communication unit (para. 0024, instructions can be input into the processing unit).
Regarding claim 18, Avila as modified by Wu, Hardy and Statton teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Wu further teaches wherein the wireless communication unit is configured to receive instructions to selectively operate the fan (para. 0024, instructions can be input into the processing unit).
Regarding claim 19, Avila as modified by Wu, Hardy and Statton teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Wu further teaches wherein the wireless communication unit is configured to receive instructions to selectively operate the heating plate (para. 0024, instructions can be input into the processing unit).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avila in view of Wu in view of Hardy in view of Statton, as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Safyan (US 5941077).
Regarding claim 14, Avila as modified by Wu, Hardy and Statton teaches the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach wherein the controller includes a timer, and is configured to selectively deactivate the fan upon the passage of a set period of time. However, Safyan teaches a controller including a timer and configured to selectively deactivate a fan upon the passage of a period of time (col. 5, ll. 8-12, thermostat 114 can control the power supply to fans 82a and 82b to switch the fans off or on). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Avila’s feeder with a controller as taught by Safyan to prevent excessive heating.
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, Tien Dinh can be reached at 5712726899. 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