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 .
Application Status
Claims 13-23 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 8/15/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
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 (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 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.
Claims 13, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2)as being anticipated by Googe, Jr. et al. (PGPub #2003/0136348).
Regarding claim 13, Googe teaches a device for dispensing water, comprising: a water reservoir (Shown below in figure 2) having opposed top and bottom ends (Shown below in figure 2) and at least one water reservoir sidewall (Shown below in figure 2), wherein at least one connector port is formed in the at least one water reservoir sidewall (Shown below in figure 2); at least one water distribution arm (The arms as seen in figures 1-3) having opposed open and closed ends (The arms as seen in figures 1-3) and at least one water distribution arm sidewall (The arms as seen in figures 1-3), wherein at least one water distribution port is formed in the at least one water distribution arm sidewall (Shown below in figure 3); and at least one drinking valve received within the at least one water distribution port (Paragraphs 21, and 25), wherein the open end of the at least one water distribution arm is releasably connected to, and releasably mated with, the at least one connector port of the water reservoir (Shown below in figure 2, and as can be seen in figures 1-3 of the figures, and Paragraph 23, this teaches that the arms can be attached to the body through a threaded coupling which is a releasable coupling).
PNG
media_image1.png
617
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
464
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Googe teaches the device for dispensing water as recited in claim 13, wherein the top end of the water reservoir is open (The reservoir as seen in figure 2), the device for dispensing water further comprising a lid for releasably covering the top end of the water reservoir (The reservoir and lid as shown above in figure 2, as can be seen the lid is connected to the reservoir through a threaded connection).
Regarding claim 23, Googe teaches the device for dispensing water as recited in claim 13, wherein further comprising a mounting bracket for mounting the water reservoir on a support surface (The mounting bracket shown above in figure 3 acts to mount the reservoir on the ground which acts as a supporting surface).
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.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Googe, Jr. et al. (PGPub #2003/0136348) in view of Jansson (DE 1607215).
Regarding claim 14, Googe teaches the device for dispensing water as recited in claim 13, but does not teach that the at least one connector port comprises a lug. However, Jansson does teach that the at least one connector port comprises a lug (2, 6, and 15 as seen in figure 1, the projecting element 6, and its groove forms a lug for the connector port). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the connector port has a lug because Googe and Jansson are both animal drinking devices connected to a water source. The motivation for having the connector port has a lug is that it helps to create a secure releasable connection between the drinking outlet member and the water source.
Regarding claim 15, Googe as modified by Jansson teaches the device for dispensing water as recited in claim 14, but Googe does not teach that the lug is an angled lug or a straight lug. However, Jansson does teach that the lug is an angled lug or a straight lug (2, 6, and 15 as seen in figure 1, as can be seen the lug protrudes in a straight manner from the end of the valve). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lug be a straight lug because Googe and Jansson are both animal drinking devices connected to a water source. The motivation for having the lug be a straight lug is that it allows for the lug to be more easily manufactured and added to the system.
Regarding claim 16, Googe as modified by Jansson teaches the device for dispensing water as recited in claim 14, but Googe does not teach that the lug has a lug stop. However, Jansson does teach that the lug has a lug stop (6, and 15 as seen in figure 1, as can be seen the end portion of 15 acts as a lug stop). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lug have a lug stop because Googe and Jansson are both animal drinking devices connected to a water source. The motivation for having the lug have a lug stop is that it helps to stop the relative motion of the two elements and holds them in a desired respective position.
Regarding claim 17, Googe teaches the device for dispensing water as recited in claim 13, but does not teach that the at least one water distribution arm has a lug. However, Jansson does teach that the at least one water distribution arm has a lug (The circular lug protruding from the down pipe and seated at the end of element 15). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the water distribution arm have a lug because Googe and Jansson are both animal drinking devices connected to a water source. The motivation for having the water distribution arm have a lug is that it helps to create a secure releasable connection between the drinking outlet member and the water source.
Claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Googe, Jr. et al. (PGPub #2003/0136348) in view of Nilsen et al. (US #4,450,789).
Regarding claim 14, Googe teaches the device for dispensing water as recited in claim 13, but does not teach that the at least one connector port comprises a lug. However, Nilsen does teach that the at least one connector port comprises a lug (75 and 76). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the connector port has a lug because Googe and Nilsen are both animal drinking devices connected to a water source. The motivation for having the connector port has a lug is that it helps to create a secure releasable connection between the drinking outlet member and the water source.
Regarding claim 15, Googe as modified by Nilsen teaches the device for dispensing water as recited in claim 14, but Googe does not teach that the lug is an angled lug or a straight lug. However, Jansson does teach that the lug is an angled lug or a straight lug (75, and 76 as seen in figure 3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lug be a straight lug because Googe and Nilsen are both animal drinking devices connected to a water source. The motivation for having the lug be a straight lug is that it allows for the lug to be more easily manufactured and added to the system.
Regarding claim 17, Googe teaches the device for dispensing water as recited in claim 13, but does not teach that the at least one water distribution arm has a lug. However, Nilsen does teach that the at least one water distribution arm has a lug (60, and 80 as seen in figure 3, as can be seen the upper ring 80 and the supporting columns connecting the ring to base 60 form a lug). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the water distribution arm have a lug because Googe and Nilsen are both animal drinking devices connected to a water source. The motivation for having the water distribution arm have a lug is that it helps to create a secure releasable connection between the drinking outlet member and the water source.
Regarding claim 18, Googe a modified by Nilsen teaches the device for dispensing water as recited in claim 17, but Googe does not teach that the lug of the at least one water distribution arm has a lug stop and/or a lug lock. However, Nilsen does teach that the lug of the at least one water distribution arm has a lug stop (60, and 80 as seen in figure 3, the portion of the groove that terminates at the column supporting the ring acts as a lug stop) and/or a lug lock. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the water distribution arm have a lug stop because Googe and Nilsen are both animal drinking devices connected to a water source. The motivation for having the water distribution arm have a lug stop is that it helps to stop the relative motion of the two elements and holds them in a desired respective position.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Googe, Jr. et al. (PGPub #2003/0136348) in view of Marchioro (US #6,142,100).
Regarding claim 19, Googe teaches the device for dispensing water as recited in claim 13, but does not teach a gasket for forming a seal between the at least one connector port and the at least one water distribution arm. However, Marchioro does teach a gasket (22) for forming a seal between the at least one connector port and the at least one water distribution arm (12, and 27 as seen in figure 1, and 12, 22, and 27 as seen in figure 6, and Column 3, lines 5-8). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a gasket between the connection port and the distribution arm because Googe and Marchioro are both water dispensers for small animals. The motivation for having a gasket between the connection port and the distribution arm is that it helps to seal the connection between the two elements and prevents leaks.
Claims 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Googe, Jr. et al. (PGPub #2003/0136348) in view of Smith (US #4,254,794).
Regarding claim 20, Googe teaches the device for dispensing water as recited in claim 13, but does not teach a water level control mechanism. However, Smith does teach a water level control mechanism (46, and Claim 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a water level control mechanism because Googe and Smith are both water systems for birds. The motivation for having a water level control mechanism is that it helps to ensure that there is always a desired amount of water in the reservoir.
Regarding claim 21, Googe as modified by Smith teaches the device for dispensing water as recited in claim 20, but Googe does not teach that the water level control mechanism is attached to the water reservoir. However, Smith does teach that the water level control mechanism is attached to the water reservoir (46, and 48 as seen in figure 3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the water level control mechanism attached to the reservoir because Googe and Smith are both water systems for birds. The motivation for having the water level control mechanism attached to the reservoir is that it allows the system to directly control the water level in the reservoir to allow the system to automatically allow in more water when the water gets low.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights