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 Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on December 30, 2025. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended and are hereby entered. Claim 7 has been added. Claims 2-4 have been canceled. Claims 1 and 5-7 are currently pending and have been examined. This action is made FINAL.
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 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cass (US 5,467,738 A), hereinafter Cass, in view of Y YHY Store (https://www.amazon.com/YHY-Feeder-Elevated-Ceramic-Vomiting/dp/B0C3MRP1FK/ref=sr_1_24?th=1), hereinafter Y YHY Store, Silgan Metal Packaging Mitterdorf (AT 12272 U1), hereinafter Silgan, and Stout (US 2024/0389549 A1), hereinafter Stout.
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); and
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 pedestal recess receives and cooperates with the ridge to substantially resist translation of the dish relative to the pedestal (col 4, lines 27-32; fig. 1-2, size of threaded extent 40 and projection 32 correspond such that translation of upper dish 14 is substantially resisted).
Cass does not appear to specifically disclose:
wherein the dish is a ceramic dish having 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;
the pedestal being made from silicone having a Shore A durometer of about 50;
wherein the bottom end has a shape and size that corresponds to the mat recess such that the mat recess receives and cooperates with the bottom end to substantially resist translation of the pedestal relative to the mat;
wherein the top surface extends beyond the ceramic dish and the pedestal on all sides.
However, Y YHY Store is in the field of pet provisioning systems (see title “Y YHY Slow Feeder Cat Bowl…”) and teaches:
wherein the dish is a ceramic dish (see title “…Ceramic Cat Slow Feeder Bowl…”) having 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 (see image labeled “Fit different size cat and small dog”).
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 have made the dish of ceramic as taught by Y YHY Store with a reasonable expectation of success to make the dish suitable for repeated usage and easy cleaning (see “About this item”, “Made of High-Quality Ceramics”, “Easy to clean and less likely to chew and break…”). It also would have been obvious to have modified the aforementioned pet provisioning system of Cass to have made the dish with an oblique top opening as taught by Y YHY Store with a reasonable expectation of success to make food within the dish easier for a pet to access and eat (see image labeled “Tilted Design”, “The food is more concentrated and does not easily fall out”).
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), and 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 mat recess receives and cooperates with the bottom end to substantially resist translation of the pedestal relative to the mat (fig. 4; para [0018] and [0020]);
wherein the top surface extends beyond the ceramic dish and the pedestal on all sides (fig. 4, note that if the dish and pedestal of Cass are placed within receiving surface 3 of Silgan, annular surface 6 of carrier plate 2 of Silgan would extend beyond the dish and pedestal on all sides).
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 and 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 food spillage (para [0017]-[0018]).
Although Cass as modified 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 absorbing moisture from dropped food and/or water, thereby keeping the feeding area in a cleaner condition, 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.
Finally, Stout is in the field of pet provisioning systems (title; abstract) and teaches:
the pedestal (second container 14) being made from 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 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 made the 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 as well as use by pets, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, Cass as modified discloses the pet provisioning system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein proportion of the height and a lateral dimension of the pedestal (from Cass, comprises coupling components 16 and lower dish 12) is configured to maintain a low center-of-gravity to prevent the ceramic dish (from Cass, upper dish 14) or the pedestal from being tipped over during use by a pet (from Cass, fig. 2).
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 Y YHY Store (https://www.amazon.com/YHY-Feeder-Elevated-Ceramic-Vomiting/dp/B0C3MRP1FK/ref=sr_1_24?th=1), hereinafter Y YHY Store, Silgan Metal Packaging Mitterdorf (AT 12272 U1), hereinafter Silgan, and Stout (US 2024/0389549 A1), hereinafter Stout, 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 for use by pets and pet caretakers.
Regarding claim 6, Cass as modified discloses the pet provisioning system of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the mat is generally rectangular in shape, with rounded corners and a filleted 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 filleted 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 filleted edge as taught by Pini with a reasonable expectation of success to make the mat more comfortable for use by pets and pet caretakers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 3-4 of 7), filed December 30, 2025, regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1 under §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that “Silgan teaches away from Applicant’s system that includes a ‘ceramic dish’ of the very type Silgan proposes eliminating” which “amounts to a failure to establish a prima facie case of obviousness” (Remarks, pages 3-4 of 7).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully asserts that although the prior art does disclose use of a mat with a single use pet food container, this is merely an intended use for the mat and apparatus. It is well understood in the art of pet food containers and feeders to place a mat under a pet food container (whether single-use or reusable) with the motivation of preventing spillage of food onto a floor or other protected surface. Additionally, it is very common in the field of animal feeding devices to utilize non-wet food, or food that is not pre-packaged in a single-use container (e.g., a can). Although Silgan discusses use of its feeding apparatus with a single-use pet food container, one having ordinary skill in the art may still be motivated to use the apparatus with mat of Silgan alongside a reusable bowl so that dry food can be dispensed from a bag or other large store of food into a container from which an animal can eat. Regardless of the type of food being dispensed or the container used, the mat of Silgan would still be capable of protecting a surrounding area from spillage and other messes.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 4-6 of 7), filed December 30, 2025, regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1 under §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that “the Office Action fails to articulate a reasoned, art-based rationale explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the overall claimed pet provisioning system…in the manner claimed to reach Applicant’s independent claim 1 as a whole” (Remarks, pages 4-5 of 7).
In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Examiner further respectfully asserts that the prior art does provide reasoning for one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the features as claimed. For example, Y YHY Store does provide reasoning for modifying the dish of Cass to be a ceramic dish and to have the oblique top opening as claimed (see Y YHY Store, “About this item”, “Made of High-Quality Ceramics”, “Easy to clean and less likely to chew and break…” and see image labeled “Tilted Design”, “The food is more concentrated and does not easily fall out”). Additionally, Silgan does provide reasoning for modifying the dish of Cass to have a mat as claimed (see Silgan, para [0017]-[0018]). Finally, Stout does provide reasoning for modifying the dish with pedestal of Cass to make the pedestal of silicone (see Stout, para [0043]). Further explanation for each modification is provided in the rejection above. Cass does teach a “liquid reservoir 24 defined by the bottom dish [that] is preferably filled with water”; however, one would not be led away from inclusion of a dry, absorbent mat beneath the apparatus of Cass, as the dry, absorbent mat would absorb moisture splashed over from the aforementioned “liquid reservoir” and prevent spread of water across a floor or other protected surface. Therefore, it would still have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Cass to include features of Y YHY Store, Silgan, and Stout as described in the rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, page 6 of 7), filed December 30, 2025, regarding the newly added limitation to claim(s) 1 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest that “the top surface [of the mat] extends beyond the ceramic dish and the pedestal on all sides” (Remarks, page 6 of 7).
However, the Examiner respectfully asserts that the prior art of Cass as modified does in fact teach or suggest wherein “the top surface [of the mat] extends beyond the ceramic dish and the pedestal on all sides”. Specifically, Silgan teaches a top surface of a mat (annular surface 6 of carrier plate 2) extending beyond a dish (container 4) on all sides (see Silgan, fig. 4). With the dish with pedestal already taught by Cass used in place of the dish, or container, of Silgan (i.e., dish with pedestal of Cass placed within the mat recess of Silgan), one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at an apparatus having a top surface of a mat extending beyond a dish and pedestal on all sides.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, page 6 of 7), filed December 30, 2025, regarding new claim 7 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest a “‘proportion of the height and a lateral dimension’ that ‘maintain[s] a low center-of-gravity to prevent the ceramic dish or the pedestal from being tipped over during use by a pet’” (Remarks, page 6 of 7).
However, the Examiner respectfully asserts that the prior art of Cass as modified does in fact teach a “proportion of the height and a lateral dimension that maintain[s] a low center-of-gravity”. Specifically, Cass teaches a pedestal (comprises coupling components 16 and lower dish 12) having a height and lateral dimension proportion such that the construct maintains a low center of gravity (see Cass, fig. 1-2). This configuration is capable of preventing the ceramic dish (upper dish 14) and/or pedestal from being tipped over during use.
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. Specifically, the prior art “The Strategist” has been cited for teaching use of a diatomaceous earth mat for water absorption.
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 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
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647