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.
Claim 17 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.
In claim 17, the limitation “wherein the at least one compartment between two third trap doors is blind” is confusing since it is unclear what the phrase “at least one compartment between two third trap doors is blind” intends to implied. Therefore, it is not understood what is being claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Norris (US 2015/0189855).
For claim 1, Norris teaches a device for extracting food from a tank of an animal feeder where it is designed to be fastened, the device comprising an opening, which in turn comprises:
- a frame (250), formed by a U-shaped sheet that has a hole (251) located in each wing of the U-shape, and
- a food extracting mechanism that is fastened to the frame with the ability to rotate, wherein, the food extracting mechanism comprises a trap door (230) joined to a tube to house a shaft that is fastened to the frame through the holes (234) and wherein the food extracting mechanism comprises a first trap door (230 on one end near (227)) and a second trap door (230 on one end near (226)), firmly joined to the first trap door by means of the tube, forming an angle (see Figures 6-12).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norris (US 2015/0189855).
For claim 13, as described above, Norris discloses most of the claimed invention except for mentioning wherein the first trap door comprises apertures so that the smell of the food reaches the outside. However, an Official Notice is taken that providing orifices/apertures in animal feeder is a well known technique used throughout the art of animal husbandry in order to attract animals thereof. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included apertures onto the trap door, in light of the Official Notice taken, in order to attract animals thereof.
For claim 18, Norris as modified further teach wherein the food extracting mechanism is located at the base of the tank (201).
Claims 16, 17, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norris (US 2015/0189855) in view of Mezhinsky (US 5230300).
For claim 16, as described above, Norris discloses most of the claimed invention except for mentioning a plurality of third trap doors evenly distributed around the tube that form compartments, configuring a mill.
Mezhinsky teaches that it is old and well known in the art to provide an animal feeder having a plurality of third trap doors evenly distributed around the tube that form compartments, configuring a mill (48,49,50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the animal feeder of Norris so as to include a plurality of third trap doors configuring a mill, in a similar manner as taught in Mezhinsky, so that the feeding can be distributed evenly.
For claim 17 (as best understood), Norris as modified by Mezhinsky (emphasis on Mezhinsky) further teach wherein the at least one compartment between two third trap doors (48,49,50) is blind (see Figure 3).
For claim 21, Norris as modified Mezhinsky (emphasis on Norris) further teach further teach wherein the food extracting mechanism is located at the base of the tank (201).
For claim 22, Norris as modified Mezhinsky (emphasis on Norris) further teach further teach wherein the food extracting mechanism is located at the base of the tank (201).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Note, although the examiner recites certain excerpts for the prior art, MPEP 2141.02 VI states “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS”.
The prior arts Bogart (US 9700014) and Quiring et al. (US 2012/0085289) teach an animal feeder having a tank for storing feed and a dispenser.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRINH T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRINH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644