TONGFU MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 2, 202014625228 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/625,228 02/18/2015 Yaomin MA 164938 7927 25944 7590 11/02/2020 OLIFF PLC P.O. BOX 320850 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850 EXAMINER WANG, MICHAEL H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3642 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/02/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): OfficeAction25944@oliff.com jarmstrong@oliff.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YAOMIN MA ____________ Appeal 2020-000380 Application 14/625,228 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–6 and 9–11, which are the pending claims. Appellant’s representative presented oral argument on October 22, 2020. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Tongfu Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-000380 Application 14/625,228 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure “relates to a pet feeder, in particular, to a feeder having a remote control function, and more specifically to an entertaining feeder.” Spec. 1, ll. 4–5. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim on appeal. 1. An entertaining feeder, wherein the feeder is mainly formed by a feeding body and a controller, wherein the feeding body comprises: a food container provided with a food leaking hole, the food container being rotatable along a rotation shaft, and a control signal receiver being disposed at the rotation shaft; a bracket, the rotation shaft being fastened to the bracket; and a food tray, the food tray being correspondingly disposed below the food leaking hole; and the controller comprises: a control signal transmitter, the control signal transmitter corresponding to the control signal receiver; and a controller positioner, the controller positioner being disposed at the control signal transmitter, wherein the controller is removably attachable to the feeding body, wherein the controller is programmed to control, in response to an action from a user of the feeder, the providing of the food from the food container to the food tray, so as to enable the user to acquire a conditioned response associating the controller with the providing of the food, and to mobilize sense organs of the user, wherein the food container is a hollow sphere provided with the food leaking hole, an opening and closing louvre blade is disposed inside the food leaking hole, and the food container further comprises a food leaking hole regulating switch connected to the opening and closing louvre blade, and a food leaking hole regulating switch moving groove disposed correspondingly, wherein the entertaining feeder further includes a removable and insertable sucking disc, the removable and Appeal 2020-000380 Application 14/625,228 3 insertable sucking disc fastened to the bottom of the controller, and wherein the user is a pet. Appeal Br. (Claims App.). REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 1–6 and 9–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Trottier (US 2016/0007565 A1, published Jan. 14, 2016), Choi (US 6,487,987 B1, issued Dec. 3, 2002), Jin (US 8,701,595 B2, issued Apr. 22, 2014), Martin (US 7,913,647 B1, issued Mar. 29, 2011), and Jalbert (US 2015/0143750 A1, published May 28, 2015). ANALYSIS As for claim 1, the Examiner finds that Trottier discloses an entertaining feeder comprising, inter alia, a feeding body comprising a food container (hopper 424) and a food tray (food tray 148), and a controller (controller 1320) programmed to control providing of food from the food container to the food tray, as claimed, wherein the user of the feeder is a pet (animal 106). Final Act. 2–3 (citing Trottier ¶¶ 99, 203). The Examiner also finds that Trottier discloses sensors 110, 112, and 114 provided on the controller to signal the feeder to dispense food, and “[t]hese sensors are triggered by animal 106, therefore the user is a pet.” Ans. 3. The Examiner concedes that Trottier does not disclose that “the controller is removably attachable to the feeding body,” as claimed. Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on Jin as disclosing a remote control module 23 attachable to a pet food dispenser. Id. (citing Jin, Fig. 10 (showing remote Appeal 2020-000380 Application 14/625,228 4 control module 23 removed from pet food dispenser)); Ans. 4 (“Jin provides a teaching to use a controller that can be mounted on a pet feeder”). The Examiner explains that Jin is relied on only “to provide a teaching to make the controller of Trottier removable and remote.” Ans. 3. The Examiner explains that Trottier discloses a controller having sensors 110, 112, 114 that can be operated by a pet, and Jin is not relied on to provide a controller that can be operated by a pet. Id. at 4. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Trottier using Jin’s teachings “in order to allow the user to control or set the feeder remotely or to keep it away from the pet when it should not be used.” Final Act. 4. Appellant contends, inter alia, that it would not have been obvious to modify Trottier in view of Jin as proposed by the Examiner (Appeal Br. 7), contesting the Examiner’s rationale for the modification (id. at 9). Appellant contends that the Examiner’s reasoning, “to allow the user to control or set the feeder remotely,” “is predicated on the implication that the user is not the pet.” Id. Appellant also contends that the Examiner’s further reasoning, “to keep the controller away from the pet when it should not be used,” is based on hindsight, “as Trottier does not conceive of any situation whereby the controller could be taken away from the pet, and in Jin, the alleged controller is never usable by the pet, even when part of the food tray.” Id. Appellant’s position is persuasive. Trottier discloses an animal interaction device 100 designed for interaction with an animal 106, as shown in Figure 1B. See Trottier, Fig. 1B. As shown in Figure 2, animal interaction device 100 includes sensors 110, 112, 114, which can be touch- based buttons provided for direct physical interaction with an animal. See Appeal 2020-000380 Application 14/625,228 5 id. ¶¶ 99–100, Fig. 2. As shown in Figure 1B, sensors 110, 112, 114 are located on a generally planar portion that extends outward from housing 102 such that the extending portion is disposed close to a surface supporting animal interaction device 100. This location of the sensors close to the surface allows an animal to use its paws, or other body parts, to touch the sensors, as shown in Figure 1B. See also id. ¶ 148. A food tray 148 is located near to sensors 110, 112, 114. See id. Fig. 2. Controller 1320 is connected to sensors 110, 112, 114 and provided inside of housing 102. See id. Fig. 13. Regarding the use of touch sensors, Trottier discloses that “[t]hese touch sensors could be user removable and replaceable in order that the device they are embedded within can be easily repaired if broken.” See id. ¶ 148. Trottier does not, however, appear to disclose, or suggest, that the touch sensors could be provided as a component of a controller that, itself, is removable from device 100 and remotely operable to cause food to be dispensed to food tray 148. In fact, Trottier discloses a configuration in which “the device can train the animal to ‘stay close by’” (see id. ¶ 215), and another configuration in which “the animal learns to go to the device more and more quickly, since arriving at the device too slowly after the presentation of the stimuli would result in not receiving the food” (see id. ¶ 216). For these configurations, the animal is trained to remain near, or be quickly attracted to, the device including the controller, food container, and food tray for feeding purposes. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not articulated an adequate reason with a rational underpinning to somehow modify Trottier to result in sensors 110, 112, 114 and controller 1320 being removably attachable to the “feeding body” comprising the food container (hopper 424) Appeal 2020-000380 Application 14/625,228 6 and food tray (food tray 148), as found by the Examiner. For example, the Examiner does not explain, first, how Trottier would be modified to incorporate sensors 110, 112, 114 and controller 1320 into a separable controller, and, second, how the controller would be removably attachable to the “feeding body.” Further, as discussed, Trottier discloses that these sensors are provided on the animal interaction device in order to train animals to physically interact directly with the device, and particularly, the food tray. Jin does not appear to disclose the specific function of wireless controls 24 on remote control module 23, but this module does not appear to be designed for actuation or interaction by the pet. See, e.g., Jin, col. 4, ll. 17–23. The Examiner has not explained adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Trottier’s animal interaction device in view of Jin, as proposed, such that any interaction of an animal with a combined controller/sensors would not permit physical interaction directly with the food tray. For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–6, and 9–11 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Trottier, Choi, Jin, Martin, and Jalbert. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–6, 9–11 103 Trottier, Choi, Jin, Martin, Jalbert 1–6, 9–11 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation