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 .
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,336,517 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 12,336,517 B2 requires each and every limitation of instant claim 1.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,336,517 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 12,336,517 B2 requires each and every limitation of instant claims 13 and 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the combination of the claimed elements of independent claim 1, specifically the combination of the channel fluidly coupling the opening to the bowl, the channel including a right protrusion extending from the right sidewall, a left protrusion extending from the left sidewall, each of the right protrusion and the left protrusion towards each other, wherein the right protrusion and the left protrusion are disposed closer to the bottle support than to the bowl. The instant claim 1 contains allowable subject matter for the same reasons as stated in the Notice of Allowance issued in parent Application No. 18/109,662. As detailed in the Office Action mailed 11/20/2024 in Application No. 18/109,662, The instant invention sets out to provide a gravity-type water dispenser for a pet that aims to reduce water flow issues and overflow while accommodating water bottles of different sizes. The instant specification grants criticality to the configuration of the first and second protrusions extending from the first and second wall of the channel. Specifically, when the protrusions are placed closer to the bottle support area than to the bowl (positioned one-third ways along the channel), the positioning helps to reduce the turbulence produced when water flows from the water bottle to the bottle support area (instant specification at paragraph [0028]).
As detailed in the above rejection, U.S. Design Patent No. D316382 to Lorenzana teaches a water dispenser including a bottle support area, a bowl, and a channel having a pair of first and second sidewalls extending from the nozzle receiving portion, and Foreign Patent Publication DE 202009013837 U1 to Optipack is relied upon for the teaching of a pair of first and second protrusions extending from the first and second sidewalls of the channel towards each other. Optipack teaches the protrusions situated right between a bottle support area and a bowl. Lorenzana in view of Optipack, however, fails to disclose or render obvious that the right protrusion and the left protrusion are disposed closer to the bottle support than to the bowl. The prior art of record fails to cure the deficiencies of Lorenzana and Optipack, and such modifications would require impermissible hindsight.
Regarding independents claim 13 and 19, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the combination of the claimed elements including a channel fluidly coupling the opening to the bowl, the channel including a protrusion extending from the right sidewall or the left sidewall, and wherein the protrusion is disposed closer to the bottle support portion than to the bowl. As referred to above, Optipack teaches a protrusion on a sidewall of the channel, situated between a bottle support portion and a bowl, but the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious that the protrusion is disposed closer to the bottom support than to the bowl, and such modifications would require impermissible hindsight.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. The references have many of the elements in the applicant’s disclosure and claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Byun whose telephone number is (571) 272-3212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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. Agendas may be sent to HaeRie.Byun@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached on (571) 272-6891. 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.
/H.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643