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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-18, drawn to a feeding station, classified in A01K5/0225.
II. Claims 19 & 20, drawn to method of delivering fertility control feed to a target species, classified in A01M25/004.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the apparatus of Group I can be used to practice another and materially different process, especially since “fertility control feed” is not required in the system.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classifications;
The inventions require a different field of search (e.g. searching different classes/subclass or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). Such a mutually exclusive search includes the search for fertility and/or reproduction suppressing feed within a hopper.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Attorney of Record Lauren Edwards Williams on 25 August 2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 19 & 20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 15 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.
For claim 15, the use of the phrase “a plurality of interchangeable entry frames configured to attach to the at least one opening, wherein each of the plurality of interchangeable entry frames are sized differently to allow access into the enclosure for variously sized said target species.” renders the claim vague and indefinite since claim 14, from which it depends, establishes “at least one reinforced entry frame”. It is unclear whether the at least one frame is included or precluded from the plurality, based on the claim language.
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, 4, 5, & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being disclosed by Davis (US 20100024736 A1).
For claim 1, Davis discloses a feeding station (title, disclosure) comprising:
an enclosure (housing 100), the enclosure including at least one opening sized to allow access into the enclosure for a target species whilst excluding access into the enclosure for a non-target species (“a narrow vertical opening 150,” ¶0018);
a feeding tray (one of 310, 320) housed within the enclosure; and
a refillable hopper (the respective one of 110, 120) housed within the enclosure (Fig. 3), the refillable hopper in communication with the feeding tray and configured to dispense fertility control feed into the feeding tray (each respective hopper of 110, 120 is connected with and forms a space inside to handle such a feed, to distribute to 310, 320).
For claim 4, Davis discloses the feeding station of claim 1, and Davis further discloses wherein the enclosure includes two openings (each of 150) disposed at opposite first and second sides (left and right of Fig. 1) of the enclosure at a first end of the enclosure (located at the fore end of housing 100, Fig. 1).
For claim 5, Davis discloses the feeding station of claim 4, and Davis further discloses wherein the feeding tray is disposed at a second end of the enclosure, opposite the two openings (Fig. 3).
For claim 8, Davis discloses the feeding station of claim 1, and Davis further discloses wherein the enclosure includes an enclosure base (at least the bottom board of housing 100, Fig. 1) and an enclosure top (at least the ceiling of housing 100, Fig. 1).
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.
Claims 2 & 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morris (US 20070107667 A1).
For claim 2, Davis discloses the feeding station of claim 1.
Davis is silent to further comprising a plurality of interchangeable entry frames configured to attach to the at least one opening, wherein each of the plurality of interchangeable entry frames are sized differently to allow access into the enclosure for variously sized said target species.
Morris, like prior art above, teaches a feeding system (title, disclosure) further comprising a plurality of interchangeable entry frames (50, 52, 54, ¶0029) configured to attach to the at least one opening (Id.), wherein each of the plurality of interchangeable entry frames are sized differently to allow access into the enclosure for variously sized said target species (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify Davis with interchangeable doorways as taught by Morris, in order to better target species of specific sizes, yielding predictable results.
For claim 3, Davis in view of Morris teaches the feeding station of claim 2, and Morris further teaches wherein each of the plurality of interchangeable entry frames are reinforced (as seen in Fig. 8).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Been (US 2250347 A).
For claim 6, Davis discloses the feeding station of claim 5.
Davis is silent to further comprising two ramps disposed within the enclosure at opposite said first and second sides of the enclosure, the two ramps each connecting one of the two openings to the feeding tray.
Been, like prior art above, teaches an animal device (title, disclosure) further comprising two ramps (11, 12, 17) disposed within the enclosure at opposite said first and second sides of the enclosure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the openings in Davis with ramps leading to the openings as taught by Been, in order to allow access to the interior of the device, yielding predictable results.
The resulting device renders obvious that the two ramps each connecting one of the two openings to the feeding tray (in the assembled device, each ramp would be lead to the feed trays).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Doucette (US 5038516 A).
For claim 7, Davis discloses the feeding station of claim 1.
Davisis silent to further comprising at least one anchoring structure located on the enclosure for securing the enclosure to an external element.
Doucette, like prior art above, teaches an animal device (title, disclosure) further comprising at least one anchoring structure (bolting or other means) located on the enclosure for securing the enclosure to an external element (Col. 2, lines 18-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the enclosure of Davis with an anchor as taught by Doucette, in order to provide a stationary device, yielding predictable results.
Claims 9 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Files (US 20200253187 A1).
For claim 9, Davis discloses the feeding station of claim 1.
Davis is silent to further comprising a motion activated camera system disposed within the enclosure and configured to monitor activity within the enclosure.
Files, like prior art above, teaches an animal device (title, disclosure) comprising a motion activated camera system disposed within the enclosure and configured to monitor activity within the enclosure ¶0037.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the device of Davis with a motion-activated camera as taught by Files, in order to allow remote monitoring of the device’s effectiveness, yielding predictable results.
For claim 11, Davis in view of Files teaches the feeding station of claim 10, and Files further teaches further comprising a removable tray for insertion into the enclosure (the container of Fig. 7B), and wherein the motion activated camera system is housed within the removable tray (at least a portion of the camera or its circuitry is housed in the container shown in Fig. 7B).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Files as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kook et al. (KR 20210074087 A, “Kook”).
For claim 10, Davis in view of Files teaches the feeding station of claim 9, and Files further teaches wherein the motion activated camera system includes a microcontroller (“In some cases, the circuit 706 may include an artificial intelligence algorithm with a preset number of pest profiles to enable the circuit 706 to analyze sensor data received from the sensor 108 to identify a type of pest captured by the trap 100. The circuit 706 may monitor sensor data received from outward facing sensors to analyze and provide suggestions as to where to place additional ones of the trap 100.” ¶0109), LED lights ¶0038, and a battery pack ¶0039-40.
Davis in view of Files is silent to a NoIR lens, and the LEDs being near-infrared LED lights.
Kook, like prior art above, teaches an animal device (title, disclosure) further comprising a NoIR lens and the LEDs being near-infrared LED lights (the last para. of page 5 of the appended translation, where 850 nm is near-infrared).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the camera of Davis with a NoIR camera and cooperating near-infrared light source as taught by Kook, in order to use one of many known cameras, depending on the level of light and/or energy available to the device, yielding predictable results.
Claims 12 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zimmerman et al. (US 20250143261 A1, “Zimmerman”).
For claim 12, Davis discloses the feeding station of claim 1.
Davis is silent to further comprising a force sensor disposed underneath the refillable hopper to monitor a weight of the feed within the refillable hopper.
Zimmerman, like prior art above, teaches an animal feeding system (title, disclosure) further comprising a force sensor disposed underneath the refillable hopper to monitor a weight of the feed within the refillable hopper ¶0058.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the hopper of Davis with a monitoring load sensor as taught by Zimmerman, in order to better remotely monitor the capacity of the hopper without direct involvement from the user, yielding predictable results.
For claim 13, Davis in view of Zimmerman teaches the feeding station of claim 12, and Zimmerman further teaches wherein the force sensor is configured to transmit sensor data over a communication network to an external device (“client devices,” ¶0058).
Claims 14 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Doucette and Morris.
For claim 14, Davis discloses a feeding station (title, disclosure) comprising:
an enclosure (housing 100) including an enclosure base (at least the bottom board of housing 100, Fig. 1), an enclosure top (at least the ceiling of housing 100, Fig. 1), at least one entrance (150) to allow access into the enclosure for a target species whilst excluding access into the enclosure for a non-target species (due to the narrow opening of 150);
a feeding tray (one of 310, 320) housed within the enclosure; and
a refillable hopper (the respective one of 110, 120) housed within the enclosure (Fig. 3), the refillable hopper in communication with the feeding tray and configured to dispense fertility control feed into the feeding tray (each respective hopper of 110, 120 is connected with and forms a space inside to handle such a feed, to distribute to 310, 320).
Davis is silent to at least one opening within the enclosure base and at least one anchoring structure for securing the enclosure to an external element;
at least one reinforced entry frame configured to attach to the at least one opening of the enclosure, the at least one reinforced entry frame sized to allow access into the enclosure for a target species whilst excluding access into the enclosure for a non-target species;
Doucette, like prior art above, teaches an animal device (title, disclosure) further comprising at least one opening within the enclosure base (the cooperating element accepting the bolting or other means), at least one anchoring structure (bolting or other means) located on the enclosure for securing the enclosure to an external element (Col. 2, lines 18-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the enclosure of Davis with an anchor as taught by Doucette, in order to provide a stationary device, yielding predictable results.
Morris, like prior art above, teaches a feeding system (title, disclosure) further comprising at least one reinforced entry frame (50, 52, 54, ¶0029, Fig. 8) configured to attach to the at least one opening (Id.), the at least one reinforced entry frame sized to allow access into the enclosure for a target species whilst excluding access into the enclosure for a non-target species (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify Davis with interchangeable doorways as taught by Morris, in order to better target species of specific sizes, yielding predictable results.
For claim 15, Davis as modified above teaches the feeding station of claim 14, and Morris further teaches further comprising a plurality of interchangeable entry frames configured to attach to the at least one opening, wherein each of the plurality of interchangeable entry frames are sized differently to allow access into the enclosure for variously sized said target species (52, 54, Fig. 8).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Doucette and Morris as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Been.
For claim 16, Davis as modified above teaches the feeding station of claim 14, and Davis further teaches wherein the enclosure includes two openings (each of 150) disposed at opposite first and second sides (left and right side, Fig. 1) of the enclosure at a first end of the enclosure (the fore end, Fig. 1), wherein the feeding tray is disposed at a second end of the enclosure (Fig. 3), opposite the two openings.
Davis as modified above is silent to wherein the feeding station further comprises two ramps disposed within the enclosure at said opposite first and second sides of the enclosure, the two ramps each connecting one of the two openings to the feeding tray.
Been, like prior art above, teaches an animal device (title, disclosure) further comprising two ramps (11, 12, 17) disposed within the enclosure at opposite said first and second sides of the enclosure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the openings in Davis with ramps leading to the openings as taught by Been, in order to allow access to the interior of the device, yielding predictable results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Doucette and Morris as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Files and Kook.
For claim 17, Davis as modified above teaches the feeding station of claim 14.
Davis is silent to further comprising a removable tray for insertion into the enclosure, wherein the removable tray includes a motion activated camera system configured to monitor activity within the enclosure, and wherein the motion activated camera system includes a microcontroller, a NoIR lens, near-infrared LED lights and a battery pack.
Files, like prior art above, teaches an animal device (title, disclosure) comprising a removable tray for insertion into the enclosure (the container of Fig. 7B), wherein the removable tray includes a motion activated camera system configured to monitor activity within the enclosure ¶0037, and wherein the motion activated camera system includes a microcontroller ¶0109, LED lights ¶0038 and a battery pack ¶0039-40.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the device of Davis with a motion-activated camera as taught by Files, in order to allow remote monitoring of the device’s effectiveness, yielding predictable results.
Kook, like prior art above, teaches an animal device (title, disclosure) further comprising a NoIR lens and the LEDs being near-infrared LED lights (the last para. of page 5 of the appended translation, where 850 nm is near-infrared).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the camera of Davis with a NoIR camera and cooperating near-infrared light source as taught by Kook, in order to use one of many known cameras, depending on the level of light and/or energy available to the device, yielding predictable results.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Doucette and Morris as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Zimmerman
For claim 18, Davis as modified above teaches the feeding station of claim 14.
Davis as modified above is silent to further comprising a force sensor disposed underneath the refillable hopper to monitor a weight of the feed within the refillable hopper, and wherein the force sensor is configured to transmit sensor data over a communication network to an external device.
Zimmerman, like prior art above, teaches an animal feeding system (title, disclosure) further comprising a force sensor disposed underneath the refillable hopper to monitor a weight of the feed within the refillable hopper ¶0058, and wherein the force sensor is configured to transmit sensor data over a communication network to an external device (“client devices,” ¶0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the hopper of Davis with a monitoring load sensor as taught by Zimmerman, in order to better remotely monitor the capacity of the hopper without direct involvement from the user, yielding predictable results.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Special attention is drawn to the disclosures of DE 4431694 A1, US 5769028 A, US 20100199919 A1, US 20200337267 A1, and US 20240315233 A1 as disclosing an invention or aspects of the invention which are similar to those claimed and/or disclosed in the instant invention. The remaining references cited establish the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Morgan T. Jordan whose telephone number is (571)272-8141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, PETER POON can be reached at 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.
/MORGAN T JORDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights