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 Claims
This action is in reply to the Response to Election/Restriction filed on November 03, 2025. Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B (Fig. 13-14) in the reply filed on November 03, 2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In para [0091], lines 4-5, the sentence “In some embodiments.” appears to be incomplete.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
the “pod lowering mechanism” as described in claim 4
the “conveyor” as described in claims 6-7 including “a pair of parallel rails”
the “compactor mechanism” as described in claim 11
the “removable filter” as described in claim 14
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 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Commas are present after the preamble of each of claims 12-13 but not after preambles of other claims. It is suggested to either include a comma after the preamble of each of the claims or after the preamble of none of the claims to improve consistency of claim formatting.
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 9-13 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 9, lines 2-3, recites the limitation “a feeding bay in the body configured to receive the open container portion of a pet food pod that has been conveyed from the lid removal bay”. However, no elements have been introduced in claim 9 or in any of the claims from which claim 9 depends that would be capable of conveying the pet food pod container portion from the lid removal bay. It is thus unclear how the pet food pod container portion would be able to be conveyed from the lid removal bay to the feeding bay. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Claims 10-13 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency upon claim 9.
Similarly, claim 10, lines 2-3, recites the limitation “a pod disposal chamber configured to receive a plurality of pet food pod container portions, in a substantially empty state, conveyed from the feeding bay”. However, no elements have been introduced in claim 10 or in any of the claims from which claim 10 depends that would be capable of conveying the pet food pod container portions from the feeding bay. It is thus unclear how the pet food pod container portions would be able to be conveyed from the feeding bay to the pod disposal chamber. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morin (FR 3111765 A1), hereinafter Morin.
Regarding claim 1, Morin discloses a device for automatically serving wet pet food (food distribution device 2), the device comprising:
a body (frame 31);
a lid removal bay (para [0111], “intermediate position”) in the body (fig. 4), the lid removal bay configured to receive a pet food pod1 (food container 4), the pet food pod including a container portion (food compartment 5) containing wet pet food (para [0094], “food container 4 can hold…wet food”; para [0096], “food compartment 5 containing food”), the container portion being generally bowl-shaped (fig. 3) and having a rim (peripheral edge 5.1), the pet food pod further including a lid (closing lid 6) peelably and hermetically sealed to the rim (para [0096], “closing lid 6 which is detachable and configured to close, preferably hermetically, the food compartment 5”), the lid having a peripheral tab (opening tab 7);
a tab engaging element (receiving slot 39, gripping member 41) configured to engage the peripheral tab (para [0117], “receiving slot 39 configured to receive the opening tab 7 of a food container 4”; para [0119], “gripping member 41 is configured to grasp the opening tab 7 of a food container 4”);
a lid removal actuator (opening mechanism 36) in the body (fig. 4), the lid removal actuator operable to, upon receipt of the pet food pod within the lid removal bay, actuate the tab engaging element along a trajectory over the pet food pod so that the tab engaging element will engage and pull the peripheral tab across the container portion to cause the lid to peel away from the rim, resulting in an open container portion with exposed wet pet food (fig. 9-10); and
a retainer (holding device 52) configured to substantially immobilize the pet food pod within the lid removal bay during lid removal by the tab engaging element (para [0128], “holding device 52 which is configured to hold a food container 4 in the receiving position 29 of the mobile support 28 when the closing lid 6 of said food container 4 is opened”).
Regarding claim 8, Morin discloses the device of claim 1 and further discloses further comprising: a lid disposal tray (container receptacle 54) within the body adjacent to the lid removal bay (fig. 3-4), the lid disposal tray being configured to hold a plurality of lids after removal of the lids from respective ones of the pet food pods (fig. 3-4, closing lids 6 are at least partially removed from food containers 4 during device operation; lids 6 as well as containers 4 are disposed in receptacle 54).
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) 2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin (FR 3111765 A1), hereinafter Morin.
Regarding claim 2, Morin discloses the device of claim 1 and further discloses further comprising: a pod storage tower (container storage device 3) attached to the body (fig. 2-3), the pod storage tower for receiving a stack of the pet food pods (fig. 3).
Morin does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the pod storage tower is removably attached to the body.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the pod storage tower separable from the body, with the motivation of allowing for more thorough cleaning of the device, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 4, Morin as modified discloses the device of claim 2 and further discloses further comprising: a receiving bay (para [0110], “receiving position”) in the body below the pod storage tower (fig. 4), the receiving bay configured to receive a pet food pod from the pod storage tower (fig. 4); and a pod lowering mechanism (support members 14) for lowering a lowermost pod from the pod storage tower into the receiving bay (para [0102], “…configured to drive the support members 14 in rotation so as to allow the evacuation of one food container 4 at a time…”).
Regarding claim 5, Morin as modified discloses the device of claim 4 and further discloses further comprising a conveyor (movable support 28, movement mechanism 32) operable to convey a pet food pod from the receiving bay (para [0110], “receiving position”) to the lid removal bay (para [0111], “intermediate position”; para [0110]-[0112]).
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Morin (FR 3111765 A1), hereinafter Morin, as applied to claims 2 and 5 above, respectively, and further in view of Zuppke et al. (WO 2023/220751 A1), hereinafter Zuppke.
Regarding claim 3, Morin as modified discloses the device of claim 2 but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the pod storage tower includes a pod alignment feature for promoting a uniform orientation of the pet food pods in the stack received in the pod storage tower.
However, Zuppke is in the field of pet feeding devices (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the pod storage tower (hopper 48) includes a pod alignment feature (keying feature 58) for promoting a uniform orientation of the pet food pods (containers 16) in the stack received in the pod storage tower (para [0312]; fig. 17).
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 pet feeding device comprising a pod storage tower of Morin as modified to incorporate the pod alignment feature as taught by Zuppke with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure consistent positioning of pet food pods within the pod storage tower to prevent jamming of the pet feeding device.
Regarding claim 6, Morin as modified discloses the device of claim 5 but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the conveyor substantially maintains an orientation of the pet food pod during conveyance.
However, Zuppke is in the field of pet feeding devices (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the conveyor (container handling assembly 42) substantially maintains an orientation of the pet food pod (container 16) during conveyance (para [0322]; fig. 28, maintains orientation via keying features 58).
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 pet feeding device comprising a conveyor of Morin as modified to incorporate the teaching of substantially maintaining orientation of pet food pods during conveyance as taught by Zuppke with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure consistent positioning of pet food pods within the conveyor to prevent jamming of the pet feeding device.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Morin (FR 3111765 A1), hereinafter Morin, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ovrahim et al. (WO 2021/225531 A1), hereinafter Ovrahim.
Regarding claim 7, Morin as modified discloses the device of claim 5 but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the conveyor comprises a pair of parallel rails, wherein the container portion of the pet food pod has a base with a pair of straight parallel grooves formed in an underside of the base, and wherein the conveyor is operable to slidably translate the pet food pod atop the pair of parallel rails with each of the grooves seated on a respective one of the rails.
However, Ovrahim is in the field of pet feeding devices (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the conveyor (conveyor unit 600) comprises a pair of parallel rails (circular track 610, shown as having parallel rails in fig. 6), wherein the container portion of the pet food pod has a base with a pair of straight parallel grooves formed in an underside of the base (see footnote 1 above, device of Ovrahim is capable of supporting a pet food pod having a base with a pair of straight parallel grooves as described), and wherein the conveyor is operable to slidably translate the pet food pod (receptacle 210) atop the pair of parallel rails (fig. 6) with each of the grooves seated on a respective one of the rails (see footnote 1 above, device of Ovrahim is capable of slidably translating a pet food pod as described).
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 pet feeding device comprising a conveyor of Morin as modified to incorporate the pair of parallel rails as taught by Ovrahim with a reasonable expectation of success to provide support to the base of the pet food pods such that the pet food pods are less likely to shift and cause jamming during conveyance.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin (FR 3111765 A1), hereinafter Morin, in view of Zuppke et al. (WO 2023/220751 A1), hereinafter Zuppke.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Morin discloses the device of claim 1 and further discloses further comprising: a feeding bay (feeding area 22) in the body (frame 31; fig. 2) configured to receive the open container portion of a pet food pod (food container 4) that has been conveyed from the lid removal bay (para [0111], “intermediate position”; fig. 2 and 11), the feeding bay including an opening (feeding opening 23) in a top surface of the body (fig. 2).
Morin does not appear to specifically disclose the opening being surrounded by an inwardly facing lip, the lip being configured to obstruct pod removal from the feeding bay without obstructing access to wet pet food within the container portion.
However, Zuppke is in the field of pet feeding devices (title; abstract) and teaches the opening (container display opening 24) being surrounded by an inwardly facing lip (guard 26; para [0299]), the lip being configured to obstruct pod removal from the feeding bay without obstructing access to wet pet food within the container portion (fig. 1).
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 pet feeding device comprising a feeding bay with opening of Morin to incorporate the inwardly facing lip as taught by Zuppke with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent pets from becoming injured on sharp edges of the feeding bay opening and/or pet food pod.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Morin as modified discloses the device of claim 9 and further discloses further comprising: a pod disposal chamber (container receptacle 54) configured to receive a plurality of pet food pod container portions (food compartments 5 of food containers 4; fig. 3), in a substantially empty state, conveyed from the feeding bay (fig. 3-4; para [0130]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Morin (FR 3111765 A1), hereinafter Morin, in view of Zuppke et al. (WO 2023/220751 A1), hereinafter Zuppke, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Dachs et al. (US 2022/0142121 A1), hereinafter Dachs.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Morin as modified discloses the device of claim 10 but does not appear to specifically disclose further comprising: a compactor mechanism operable to compact the plurality of pet food pod container portions, in the substantially empty state, within the pod disposal chamber.
However, Dachs is in the field of pet feeding devices (title; abstract) and teaches further comprising: a compactor mechanism (pusher 56) operable to compact the plurality of pet food pod container portions (containers 12), in the substantially empty state, within the pod disposal chamber (compartment 20; para [0082]; fig. 21-26).
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 pet feeding device of Morin as modified to incorporate the compactor mechanism as taught by Dachs with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce space taken up by empty pet food pods such that the device is capable of storing a larger number of empty pet food pods (para [0082]-[0083]; fig. 21-26).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Morin (FR 3111765 A1), hereinafter Morin, in view of Zuppke et al. (WO 2023/220751 A1), hereinafter Zuppke, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Diep (US 2015/0239663 A1), hereinafter Diep.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Morin as modified discloses the device of claim 10, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the pod disposal chamber includes a removable pod disposal tray having a pair of longitudinal curbs and a floor between the curbs recessed downwardly relative to the curbs.
However, Diep is in the field of waste disposal (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the pod disposal chamber (waste basket system 100) includes a removable pod disposal tray (waste basket false floor 120; fig. 5) having a pair of longitudinal curbs (parallel edges of raised lip 125) and a floor (flat planar surface of false floor 120, shown in fig. 6) between the curbs recessed downwardly relative to the curbs (fig. 6).
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 pet feeding device comprising a pod disposal chamber of Morin as modified to incorporate the removable pod disposal tray as taught by Diep with a reasonable expectation of success to provide storage for and allow access to liners placed within the chamber (para [0078]). One would be motivated to utilize such liners to shield the chamber from messes caused by food waste (para [0004]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Morin (FR 3111765 A1), hereinafter Morin, in view of Zuppke et al. (WO 2023/220751 A1), hereinafter Zuppke, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of KR 101996506 B1.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Morin as modified discloses the device of claim 10, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the pod disposal chamber includes a removable pod disposal tray having a floor and a plurality of crosswise grooves or ridges on the floor, each of the crosswise grooves or ridges being configured to catch the rim of a respective one of the pet food pod container portions to discourage slippage of the pet food pod container portion towards a front of the pod disposal tray.
However, KR 101996506 B1 is in the field of waste disposal (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the pod disposal chamber (accommodating body 100) includes a removable pod disposal tray (bottom plate 120; fig. 1) having a floor (planar surface of plate 120; fig. 1) and a plurality of crosswise grooves or ridges (air circulation and spacing holes 121, shown as ridges with grooves therebetween in fig. 1) on the floor (fig. 1), each of the crosswise grooves or ridges being configured to catch the rim of a respective one of the pet food pod container portions to discourage slippage of the pet food pod container portion towards a front of the pod disposal tray (fig. 1, element 121 is capable of catching the rim of a respective one of the pet food container portions).
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 pet feeding device comprising a pod disposal chamber of Morin as modified to incorporate the pod disposal tray having crosswise grooves or ridges as taught by KR 101996506 B1 with a reasonable expectation of success to lift waste off of the floor of pod disposal chamber in order to promote air flow throughout the chamber, thereby reducing odor (abstract; page 18/20, first paragraph).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin (FR 3111765 A1), hereinafter Morin, in view of Ueli (CH 716313 A2), hereinafter Ueli.
Regarding claim 14, Morin as modified discloses the device of claim 1 but does not appear to specifically disclose further comprising:
a fan within the body; and
a removable filter positioned in the airflow path of the fan, the removable filter configured to absorb or neutralize odors from air circulated by the fan, the filter being removably secured within the device.
However, Ueli is in the field of pet feeding devices (title) and teaches further comprising:
a fan (suction/fan 8) within the body (housing 2; fig. 3); and
a removable filter (activated carbon filter 6; page 11/13, second paragraph) positioned in the airflow path of the fan (fig. 3), the removable filter configured to absorb or neutralize odors from air circulated by the fan (page 9/13, see “Summary of the Invention” section, second paragraph), the filter being removably secured within the device (page 11/13, second paragraph, “the activated carbon filter 6 can be checked and if necessary exchanged”).
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 pet feeding device of Morin to incorporate the fan and removable filter as taught by Ueli with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce odors emitted from food within the pet feeding device (page 9/13, see “Summary of the Invention” section, second paragraph).
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 9:30 AM - 6:00 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 at (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
/Christopher D Hutchens/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
1 The Examiner notes that the “pet food pod” is not positively recited; thus, claim limitations related to the “pet food pod” are read and interpreted as intended use. As such, the “pet food pod” itself is not interpreted as required by the claims, and the prior art of record must merely be capable of supporting the “pet food pod” as described.