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 is the first action on the merits of application 19/069,162 filed on March 03, 2025. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been examined.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in line 7, it appears a period is missing between the phrases “at the top end” and “The bottom end”. 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).
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, the “chamfered edge along a perimeter of its top surface”, as described in claim 6, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The Examiner notes that the drawings, particularly Fig. 5-8, appear to show a filleted edge, instead of a chamfered edge, along a perimeter of the top surface. No new matter should be entered.
Additionally, the drawings are objected to because:
In regard to Fig. 3, the drawings are not proper black and white drawings, as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.84 and MPEP §608, requiring solid and clear black lines for the purposes of reproduction. In the present case, the aforementioned figures can easily be replaced with black and white line drawings to better illustrate the subject matter such that all the details are easily reproducible in the printed patent. As such, the grayscale drawings are not accepted.
In regard to Fig. 4, it is unclear what element reference “110” is referring to, as paragraph [0019] of the instant specification designates “110” as a “mat”, and a mat does not appear to be shown in Fig. 4 of the instant drawings.
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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 13, it is suggested to amend the limitation “such that the bottom end can be disposed into the mat recess” to --such that the bottom end is configured to be disposed into the mat recess-- in order to further clarify the scope of the 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.
Claim 4 is 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.
The limitation “having a Shore A durometer of about 50” in claim 4 contains a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, although the Examiner notes that paragraph [0028] of the instant specification provides explanation for the term “about”, the definition states that the term “about”…may mean within 1%, or 5%, or 10%, or 20%, or 50%, or 100%” (emphasis added). Given the level of variability in the disclosed definition, it is thus unclear how close a given Shore A durometer value must be to 50 in order to meet the claimed limitation.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cass (US 5,467,738 A), hereinafter Cass, in view of Huthmaker et al. (US D504,196 S), hereinafter Huthmaker, and Silgan Metal Packaging Mitterdorf (AT 12272 U1), hereinafter Silgan.
Regarding claim 1, Cass discloses a pet provisioning system (ant-free dishes 10, see embodiment shown in fig. 1-2), comprising:
a dish (upper dish 14) having a cylindrical wall (upward peripheral wall 30), a central axis (fig. 1, shown extending through center of upper dish 14), a planar bottom (circular plate 28) perpendicular to the central axis (fig. 1), and a ridge (projection 32) that extends below the planar bottom on an opposite side of an interior space (reservoir 34) defined by the planar bottom and the cylindrical wall (fig. 1);
a pedestal (comprises coupling components 16 and lower dish 12) having a bottom end (bottom of lower dish 12), a top end (top of coupling components 16), a height (shown in fig. 1-2), and a pedestal recess at the top end (threaded central extent 40);
wherein the pedestal recess has a shape and size that corresponds to the ridge such that the ridge can be disposed into the pedestal recess (fig. 1-2; col 4, lines 27-32); and when the ridge is disposed in the pedestal recess, the pedestal recess and the ridge cooperate to substantially resist translation of the dish relative to the pedestal (fig. 1-2, size of threaded central extent 40 and projection 32 correspond such that translation of upper dish 14 is substantially resisted).
Cass does not appear to specifically disclose:
a top opening whose perimeter lies on an oblique plane that intersects the central axis at an angle other than normal to the central axis;
a mat having a top surface and a bottom surface, wherein the top surface and the bottom surface define a thickness, the mat comprising diatomaceous earth and further including a mat recess extending from the top surface into the thickness;
wherein the bottom end has a shape and size that corresponds to the mat recess such that the bottom end can be disposed into the mat recess; and when the bottom end is disposed in the mat recess, the mat recess and bottom end cooperate to substantially resist translation of the pedestal relative to the mat.
However, Huthmaker is in the field of pet provisioning systems (title) and teaches a top opening whose perimeter lies on an oblique plane that intersects the central axis at an angle other than normal to the central axis (fig. 8).
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 provisioning system with dish of Cass to incorporate the top opening whose perimeter lies on an oblique plane as taught by Huthmaker with a reasonable expectation of success to make the dish more ergonomic such that less strain is placed on a pet’s neck and spine while eating (see title).
Additionally, Silgan is in the field of pet provisioning systems (para [0001]) and teaches:
a mat (carrier plate 2) having a top surface (annular surface 6) and a bottom surface (bottom 9), wherein the top surface and the bottom surface define a thickness (shown in fig. 4), the mat further including a mat recess (receiving surface 3) extending from the top surface into the thickness (fig. 4);
wherein the bottom end (bottom end of container 4) has a shape and size that corresponds to the mat recess such that the bottom end can be disposed into the mat recess (fig. 4); and when the bottom end is disposed in the mat recess, the mat recess and bottom end cooperate to substantially resist translation of the pedestal relative to the mat (fig. 4; para [0018] and [0020]).
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 provisioning system with pedestal having a bottom end of Cass to incorporate the mat with mat recess as taught by Silgan with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent spilled food from falling onto a floor surface and to prevent movement of the pedestal during use, thereby reducing the amount of spillage overall (para [0017]-[0018]).
Although the prior art does not appear to specifically disclose the mat comprising diatomaceous earth, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the mat of diatomaceous earth, with the motivation of repelling insects or other pests, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Additionally, the Examiner notes that no criticality has been described in the instant disclosure regarding the material choice of diatomaceous earth.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cass (US 5,467,738 A), hereinafter Cass, in view of Huthmaker et al. (US D504,196 S), hereinafter Huthmaker, and Silgan Metal Packaging Mitterdorf (AT 12272 U1), hereinafter Silgan, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Paez (US 2008/0011236 A1), hereinafter Paez.
Regarding claim 2, Cass as modified discloses the pet provisioning system of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the dish comprises a material that resists absorption of liquid.
However, Paez is in the field of pet provisioning systems (title) and teaches wherein the dish (bowl portion 12) comprises a material that resists absorption of liquid (para [0015], bowl may be formed of ceramic material).
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 provisioning system with dish of Cass as modified to have made the dish of material resistant to liquid absorption as taught by Paez with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize well understood materials to make the bowl capable of repeated usage and cleaning.
Regarding claim 3, Cass as modified discloses the pet provisioning system of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the material comprises ceramic (see Paez, para [0015], bowl may be formed of ceramic material).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cass (US 5,467,738 A), hereinafter Cass, in view of Huthmaker et al. (US D504,196 S), hereinafter Huthmaker, and Silgan Metal Packaging Mitterdorf (AT 12272 U1), hereinafter Silgan, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stout (US 2024/0389549 A1), hereinafter Stout.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Cass as modified discloses the pet provisioning system of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the pedestal comprises silicone having a Shore A durometer of about 50.
However, Stout is in the field of pet provisioning systems (title) and teaches wherein the pedestal (second container 14) comprises silicone (para [0043], “apparatus 10 and its attendant elements” may be manufactured of silicone).
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 provisioning system with pedestal of Cass as modified to have made the pedestal of silicone material as taught by Stout with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize materials that are lightweight, durable, and capable of repeated usage and cleaning (para [0043]).
Although Cass as modified does not appear to specifically disclose silicone having a Shore A durometer of about 50, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized silicone with a Shore A durometer of about 50, with the motivation of utilizing materials that are structurally stable enough to support the weight of pet food, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cass (US 5,467,738 A), hereinafter Cass, in view of Huthmaker et al. (US D504,196 S), hereinafter Huthmaker, and Silgan Metal Packaging Mitterdorf (AT 12272 U1), hereinafter Silgan, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pini et al. (US D386,838 S), hereinafter Pini.
Regarding claim 5, Cass as modified discloses the pet provisioning system of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the top surface of the mat is shaped as a closed composite figure that is void of sharp angles.
However, Pini is in the field of pet provisioning systems (title) and teaches wherein the top surface of the mat is shaped as a closed composite figure that is void of sharp angles (fig. 1-5).
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 provisioning system with mat of Cass as modified to incorporate the closed composite shape with no sharp angles as taught by Pini with a reasonable expectation of success to make the mat more comfortable to use by pets and pet caretakers.
Regarding claim 6, Cass as modified discloses the pet provisioning system of claim 1, and but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the mat is generally rectangular in shape, with rounded corners and a chamfered edge along a perimeter of its top surface.
However, Pini is in the field of pet provisioning systems (title) and teaches wherein the mat is generally rectangular in shape (fig. 2), with rounded corners (fig. 2) and a chamfered edge along a perimeter of its top surface (fig. 3-4).
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 provisioning system with mat of Cass as modified to incorporate the rectangular shape with rounded corners and chamfered edge as taught by Pini with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a desired aesthetic and to make the mat more comfortable to use by pets and pet caretakers.
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
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647