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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to speculative applications of the invention and uses phrases which can be implied, such as “The present application relates to” and “can”. 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).
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 1-19 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 9 states “any food distribution bin can independently convey food” which renders the indefinite as the term “can” renders the independent conveying of food of any food distribution bin optional and not required. Applicant should amend to clearly and distinctly point out the limitations of the claim. Claim 4 line 2, Claim 12 lines 6 and 10, and Claim 18 line 3 are also rejected in the same manner as the term “can” renders the limitations optional and not required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the ends" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “far away” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “far away” 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. Claim 13 is also rejected in the same manner.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the tail ends" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the tops" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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 1-6 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schumann US 2010/0263596.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 11-13, Schumann discloses a pet feeder, comprising a food container assembly (110, 130, 131), feeding assemblies (140, 150, 160) and a base (190), wherein the food container assembly (110, 130, 131) and the feeding assemblies (140, 150, 160) are connected to the base (190); the food container assembly (110, 130, 131) is used for storing food ([0010] dry food and water), and the feeding assemblies (140, 150, 160) are used for conveying the food stored in the food container assembly (110, 130, 131) to a pet eating position (Fig. 1); and the food container assembly (110, 130, 131) comprises at least two food distribution bins (bins 130, 131) which are not in communication with each other (Fig. 2), and the feeding assemblies (140, 150, 160) correspond to the food distribution bins (bins 130, 131) in quantity and are matched with the food distribution bins (bins 130, 131) one by one (Figs. 1-2), so that any food distribution bin (bins 130, 131) can independently convey food by means of the corresponding feeding assembly (water pump 140, feeder 150, smart control and chute/channel 160).
Regarding claim 2, Schumann discloses wherein any feeding assembly (140, 150, 160) comprises a food conveying mechanism (water pump 140, feeder 150) and a food channel (chute/channel of smart control device 160), and the food conveying mechanism (water pump 140, feeder 150) is movably arranged in (Fig. 2) the food channel (chute/channel of smart control device 160); when closing a feeding mode (mode of opening and closing the feed mechanisms) of the pet feeder (Fig. 1), the food conveying mechanism (water pump 140, feeder 150) is at an initial position (closed), and the food channel (chute/channel of smart control device 160) is in communication with the corresponding food distribution bin (103, 131); when starting the feeding mode (mode of opening and closing the feed mechanisms) of the pet feeder (Fig. 1), the food conveying mechanism (water pump 140, feeder 150) moves and leaves the initial position (moves from closed to open) to convey the food ([0010] dry food and water) to the pet eating position (open) from the food channel (chute/channel of smart control device 160); after the feeding mode (mode of opening and closing the feed mechanisms) is ended, and the food conveying mechanism (water pump 140, feeder 150) returns to the initial position (closed).
Regarding claim 3, Schumann discloses wherein any two food channels (chute/channel of smart control device 160) are not in communication with each other (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claims 5-6, Schumann discloses further comprising: a control assembly (120) used for controlling the food conveying amount (via scales 181, 182) each time in the feeding mode (mode of opening and closing the feed mechanisms), wherein the control assembly (120) comprises a plurality of sensing members (181, 182) arranged on the food conveying mechanisms (water pump 140, feeder 150) and detection members ([0010] sensors) arranged in the food channels (chute/channel of smart control device 160); and the control assembly (120) controls the food conveying amount by adjusting the moving positions of the food conveying mechanisms ([0014] If the water plate 162 does not contain enough water for the pet, the control board signals the water pump 140 to start delivering water into the water plate 162. As soon as the water scale 182 measures enough water amount to fill the plate, it sends a signal to the control board. Then, it is up to the control board to signal the water pump 140 to stop its water delivery. [0015] If the dry food amount in the dry food plate 162 needs to be replenished, the control board signals the dry food feeder 150 to turn on. Then, the dry food feeder 150 starts delivering dry food into the dry food plate 162. As soon as the dry food scale 181 measures sufficient food in the dry food plate 162, it signals the control board accordingly. It is up to the control board 120 whether to stop the dry food feeder 150.).
Regarding claim 10, Schumann discloses wherein the food conveying mechanisms (water pump 140, feeder 150) are arranged to reciprocate in the food channels (chute/channel of smart control device 160).
Regarding claim 14, Schumann discloses wherein the food storage container assembly (110, 130, 131) is arranged on the tops of the feeding assemblies (140, 150, 160).
Regarding claim 15, Schumann discloses wherein at least two food distribution bins (130, 131) which are not in communication with each other are linearly arranged (Figs. 1-2).
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.
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumann US 2010/0263596 in view of Wu (US 20230180714).
Regarding claims 7-9, Schumann discloses the invention substantially as set forth above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the pet feeder is further provided with food baffles for controlling the food conveying amount, and the food baffles are movably arranged in the food channels, wherein the food baffles are rotationally connected to the food channels, and are used for opening or closing the food channels when the food conveying mechanisms move to a certain position, wherein the food baffles are connected to the inner peripheral walls of the food channels by torsional springs.
However, Wu discloses a similar pet feeding device (Figs. 4-8) with food baffles (70) for controlling the food conveying amount ([0068] the grain baffle 70 closes the grain delivery member 31 to prevent the pet food from leaking out of the grain delivery member 31, so that an amount of the pet food that is pushed out of the pushing granary 30 by the grain pusher 20 is fixed every time), and the food baffles (70) are movably arranged in the food channels (Figs. 10-11), wherein the food baffles (70) are rotationally connected (via opening and closing) to the food channels (Figs. 10-11), and are used for opening or closing the food channels ([0068] configured to open and close) when the food conveying mechanisms (90) move, wherein the food baffles (70) are connected to the inner peripheral walls (Figs. 11-14) of the food channels by torsional springs (72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention/application, to modify Schumann, by adding food baffles for controlling the food conveying amount, and the food baffles are movably arranged in the food channels, wherein the food baffles are rotationally connected to the food channels, and are used for opening or closing the food channels when the food conveying mechanisms move to a certain position, wherein the food baffles are connected to the inner peripheral walls of the food channels by torsional springs., as taught by Wu, for the purpose of controlling the amount of grain/feed being pushed from the bin to the feeding bowl/basin.
Claim(s) 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumann US 2010/0263596.
Regarding claim 16, Schumann discloses the invention substantially as set forth above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the food container assembly comprises at least three food distribution bins which are not in communication with one another, and the at least three food distribution bins which are not in communication with one another are annularly arranged.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention/application to make the food container assembly comprise at least three food distribution bins which are not in communication with one another, and the at least three food distribution bins which are not in communication with one another annularly arranged in order to provide larger capacity of feed, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 17, Schumann discloses the invention substantially as set forth above, but does not expressly disclose wherein a control device and a battery are arranged in the base, and the control device is electrically connected to the battery and the feeding assemblies.
However, Schumann does disclose the device being electrically activated via an electronic circuit, command board and sensors ([0010]) which all inherently require a power source of some type.
Therefore, Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known to use a battery within a device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention/application to have added a battery to the device of Schumann in order to provide a power source capable to powering the command board, circuits, sensors, pump and feeder.
Regarding claim 18, Schumann discloses wherein the control device (120) comprises a communication module (123) which is in communication connection with a mobile terminal so that a user can control the pet feeder by means of the mobile terminal ([0005] the automatic storage and update of the pet's data and weight loss progress. Through a wireless device, the pet's information of weight, feeding times and food amount, food type, and daily caloric intake is saved onto the portable electronic storage device. A special program displays the information on the computer for the user, as well as the pet's veterinarian's. This allows easy progress updates and health monitoring of the pet).
Regarding claim 19, Schumann discloses wherein the control device (120) further comprises a control panel arranged on the outer wall of the base (Fig. 3, [0019] The SPF command board comprises a multi-functional navigation board 121, a display 122, a communication antenna 123, a USB interface 124, speaker unit 125, a mini printer 126 and an odor spray unit 127. The navigation board 121 provides buttons for right, left, down and up movements in menu items and also an ENTER/OK button.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner lists referenced documents on PTO-892 because the references present other/alternative or conceptual designs similar in scope that illustrate relevant features, which may demonstrate the level of novelty in comparison to Applicant’s inventive submission. The record relates to Applicant’s identified material and Examiner’s discovered references concerning Applicant’s subject matter relevant for a patentability determination.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON M RODZIWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 6 pm.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/AARON M RODZIWICZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MONICA L PERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644