TONGFU MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 2, 2020

14625228 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2020)

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